Friday, April 24, 2009

Bull@#*& alert!

Nobody every accused the NRA of being a thoughtful, deliberative, common-sense organization. Rigid, reactionary and retarded are three words that quickly spring to my mind. Offer up any gun-control proposal, no matter how mild or well-intentioned, and to the NRA, it's the first slippery step toward armed members of Barack Obama's national service corps bursting through people's doors to seize their squirrel rifles. I'm against most gun controls. Rather, I favor stiff penalties and enforcement against people who use them to commit crimes. But the NRA can be so laughable. Case in point: Pittsburgh city government enacted a law requiring gun owners to make a report when they lose a weapon or have one stolen. Now, the law was ill-conceived from the get-go, and it's totally unenforceable, because there's really no way to prove that someone knew one of their weapons had gone missing. But leave it to the NRA to employ maximum overkill. The organization has, of course, sued Pittsburgh City Council and the mayor in a bid to overturn the measure. The suit argues, probably correctly, that the city is overstepping its bounds when it gets into the area of regulating weapons. But the NRA then makes the asinine claim that the law "severely restricts and/or infringes" on citizens' constitutional right to keep firearms in their homes. What? I'm sure they would try to make some twisted argument about how this infringement supposedly occurs, but "severely"? That's just ludicrous. I'm going to say this one more time, though I'm not counting on getting through the thick skulls of people who believe otherwise: No one from the government is coming to your house to take your handguns and rifles. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not next year. Never. Ever. Ever. But just keep paying those dues to the NRA so its well-paid leaders, lawyers and lobbyists can keep acting like horse's asses on your behalf.

Labels: , ,


Blogger {cher} said...

kudos! lol

April 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM  
Blogger Dale Lolley said...

That city law penalizes lawful gun owners. Hell, somebody could steal your gun without your knowledge – believe it or not, we gun owners don't check our stash every day – and use it in a crime the same day or the next day.
Suddenly, not only the is the criminal in the wrong, so is the gun owner?
Senseless legislation.

April 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Yeah, Dale... the law is senseless... but the NRA's claim that it would restrict your right to have a gun is idiotic...

It in no way infringes on my right to own a gun... Nobody will be prevented from buying or owning a gun because of this law... The law will have no impact whatsoever on anything... but it absolutely does not infringe on anyone's right to own a gun.

And your example is the reason the law won't have any effect... if you don't know it's stolen, you won't report it... if someone DID steal your guns, OF COURSE you are going to report it... guns are expensive.

April 25, 2009 at 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sirs

As head of the NRA, I would like to calm everyone's nerves and tell them that we will fight any legislation, no matter how sensible to make sure every person can enjoy the freedoms of owning any type of firearms made by man.

We must defend ourselves and we can only do that by making firearms free and open to purchase. So what if someone walks onto a campus at Va. Tech and kills dozens of people. Collateral damage.

We can not have government robbing us of our inalienable rights to protect ourselves. As such, we will be supporting Bill No. 3432.1 that allows any legalized American to own, operate and distribute nuclear war heads. I hope you will support us on this incredibly important step to make sure we live in fear and danger.

Yours truly

Wayne La-Derriere
President, NRA

April 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't check your gun stash every day? Why not? Can't a gun take the life of one of your children in the blink of an eye? How can you not do it twice a day, just to make sure it's there? This is why accidents happen. People with a single brain cell, taking their guns for granted and ending up with it in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it.

You NRA-ers are amazingly stupid.

April 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM  
Blogger Dale Lolley said...

Uh, because my guns are locked up and I have the only key, idiot.

April 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you use your weed wacker in the winter? Do you check to see if it is there?

April 27, 2009 at 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When was the last time someone accidentally killed another with a weed-whacker. Thanks for proving my point.

April 27, 2009 at 7:57 AM  
Blogger Dale Lolley said...

I was going to post a response, but I guess it's time to go home and make sure my guns are still locked up

April 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Joe Tuscano said...

I'm wondering if the reason why the NRA is so adamant about this law is that they realize some of these guns are being purchased, then resold at a nice profit.

Otherwise, there is no plausible explaination for their opposition to this common-sense move, other than to be against any type of gun law now and in the future.

April 27, 2009 at 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brant, I could state the obvious by pointing out that slow enacting of gun laws in Australia and Great Britain that has lead to the near end of private ownership of guns. The goal of this law is simple, to create a trail to hold gun owners responsible for the actions of a firearm that was stolen. That is the real reason for the legislation and the reason that it was passed in other cities. If someone fails to report a gun stolen and we unaware then they become a criminal.
It is bad law and that is the reason the NRA is fighting it. Like many pieces of legislation, one has to consider the long term consequences and in particular the unintended results of the legislation, not just the intent.

April 28, 2009 at 9:38 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

The gun law in question was dumb...

But the NRA's assertion that it would severely infringe on the rights of people to own guns is ridiculous...

This law will never be enforced... but let's pretend it is enforced, just once.

It in no way infringes on someone's right to own a gun... because ownership of the gun is what lead to the law being broken in the first place... nobody is prevented from getting a gun by this law. The law only affects you after you already own the gun.

April 28, 2009 at 10:16 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

If you didn't know the gun had gone missing, you're not going to be convicted. No one can be expected to check their guns on a daily basis to see if they're still there. That kind of prosecution would never stand up. Yes, the law is dumb. The NRA is dumber.

April 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

And if your gun went missing... and you were aware of it... why WOULDN'T you tell the police?

If someone stole my oven, my TV, my laptop, or my dog... I'd tell the cops.

I don't need a law requiring me to do so...

But even if there WAS a law requiring me to do so, that law wouldn't prevent me from owning an oven, a tv, a laptop, or a dog...


April 28, 2009 at 11:09 AM  
Anonymous nomen nescio said...

This law is another example of the absolute lack of dedication the Mayor of Pittsburgh and City Council have to finding real solutions to problems in the city. It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is a gun problem in Pittsburgh. Between the near daily fatal shootings and the fact that city police officers need more firepower, it is time for the powers that be to come up with something that works. This isn't it.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that it penalizes responsible gun owners, though. A responsible gun owner keeps his weapons in a locked safe, keeps the key on their person or in a safe place and would report a missing or stolen weapon to the police because, well, they were robbed. I can't imagine being robbed and not realizing it. Of course, if you didn't get the gun leagally you won't report it.

So this law does nothing but make it seem as though they're doing something meaningful during the election season while yet another African American teenage gets mowed down by an Uzi for absolutely no reason.

Unfortunately the NRA is keeping real meaningful legislation from bing penned, such as an assault rifle ban or closing gun show loopholes. I'm all for a person's right to own a gun but don't see the need to own an assault rifle any more than I see the need to own a rocket launcher.

April 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM  
Blogger Dale Lolley said...

Give me a definition of an assault weapon. And no, an AK-47 is not one.
Just because it has millitary use does not make it an assault weapon. I own a 30-40 Kraig. At one time, it was the weapon of choice for the U.S. millitary at the turn of the 20th century. It was used in my family for many years for hunting.
Automatic weapons are already banned in this country unless you have a specific license to own one.
I consider an "assault" weapon one that is automatic. Semi-autos can be used for hunting.

April 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

One issue that would have to be resolved before any restrictions on the sales of assault weapons should be reimposed is the definition of what an assault weapon is. It is true that just because a weapon is used by the military does not make it an assault weapon, but it's a bit ridiculous to compare the bolt-action Krag with an AK 47, which shoots dozens or rounds per minute, even as a semi-automatic. Some may target shoot or hunt with an AK 47, but it is, essentially, a weapon that's highly effective in killing people. At what point do we draw the line on which weapons should be allowed into the hands of civilians. I wonder, Dale, if you think the average citizen, with or without a license, really should have an automatic weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. Should the general public be able to buy and own, for example, an automatic version of the AK, an Uzi or an M-60 machine gun? Where is the line drawn? I'm sure that if the laws on high-powered weaponry are tightened, some criminals will get their hands on them anyway. But it might prevent someone like the guy accused of killing the three Pittsburgh police officers from easily laying his hands on one.

May 1, 2009 at 5:52 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

You know, Dale... you had me laying half awake all night thinking about this :-)

Well... It wasn't your fault... I haven't slept very well the past month or so.

Anyway... The only resolution I could come to was... drum roll... ammunition capacity.

Would anyone have a problem with an AK-47 if it only held a 5 round clip?

Semi-auto or Full Auto... it doesn't really make a difference as there are pros and cons to each.

Of the 8 firearms I own, the one with the highest capacity is my .22 rifle with a 7 round clip, effectively making it an 8 shot rifle.

But to get off those 8 shots, I have to utilize the bolt action between each shot.

There is a similar barrier to rapid-fire shooting with the other weapons... whether it is the pump-action, a hammer, a bolt, or a lever... the fact is, even the quickest shooter is a lot slower than a semi-auto... and if you count the .22, they top out at 8 rounds of ammo.

The 30 round clip is not just a functional impediment to the AK-47 being a civilized weapon... it is also a psychological one.

If you know that you can throw 10 rounds at a barricade or cop car just to either make a statement or possibly bounce one into someone's kneecap, and STILL have 20 in the hopper before you need to reload... you are a lot more likely to go ahead and be reckless (and more dangerous)with your supply.

If you knew you only had 5 shots before having to reload, you might not be so quick to pull the trigger the first time... you know, saving it for the ideal shot and all...

I've said in other venues that certain guns attract certain owners...

If you just told me that a 22 year old guy bought an AK-47... my thought process is as follows:

1. He's a drug dealer who thinks he's "gangsta"

2. He's a rich kid with a thing for guns... he probably has a couple of lugers and muskets, too

3. He's a looney toon who thinks he is going to be fighting the revolution against the new world order, the masons, the knights templar and the jews

2 of those people should not be able to fire off 30 rounds as fast as he can twitch his finger 30 times... they are already in the mindset that they need this gun because they are at war. The drug dealer intends to use this to kill other drug dealers. The looney toon intends to use this gun to kill... hell, whoever shows up at his house in uniform, I guess...

The guy in the middle... not a threat, not a danger... just a guy with a love for a machine... Who probably wouldn't be impacted much by a 7 round limit on rifle magazines...

The game commission already limits the number of rounds you can have loaded during different seasons... or at least they did a couple of years ago.

May 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM  
Anonymous nomen nescio said...

I would classify any semi-automatic version of of an automatic weapon as an assault weapon. Additionally, I would say that any semi-automatic weapon equipped with large capacity magazine is an assault weapon. I thought the AK 47 was classified as an assault weapon in the 1994 ban.

May 1, 2009 at 8:31 AM  
Blogger Dale Lolley said...

Automatic weapons are already illegal unless you have a special, goverment-issued license. Have been since the days of Al Capone.
I would have no problem limiting the clip capacity. I don't think anyone would, even the NRA.
I would ask what's the difference between an AK and an M-1 Garand?
Civillians can purchase M-1's from the millitary. It's a semi-auto with an eight-shot clip.
Many local gun clubs have M-1 Garand shoots through the civillian marksmanship program.

May 2, 2009 at 5:31 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

I don't think anyone would have a problem with the M-1 Garand. The problem with the AK is that you can plug a 250-round magazine into it. There's no reason a civilian needs one of those. But I think you might be wrong about the NRA having no opposition to a limit on clip capacity. Again, however, there are already a lot of those large clips and magazines out there, but it could help to not have them readily available for some nut who wants to shoot up a school playground.

May 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

And the fact that if you cut off the
"renewal" of the supply, eventually those clips in existence will be confiscated as evidence to a crime, will break, wear out, or otherwise be rendered useless, or will find their way to other countries...

The key is not being able to run down to your local gun store to buy a new one.

I think this clip size issue has some legs... Because really, what's an AK-47 with an 8 round clip?

May 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

The AK's advantage is its durability and reliability. It's never been touted as the most accurate weapon. Take away the AK's massive clip or magazine, and you'd probably be better off with a good deer rifle.

May 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Exactly... and nobody is talking about banning deer rifles...

Therefore, the magazine is the problem...

Who can we write to... to suggest legislation banning rifle-round magazines in excess of 8 rounds (or some other arbitrary, but low number)?

I'd like to see if the NRA would be as understanding on this issue as some expect :-)

May 3, 2009 at 6:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home