4 ms·

It’s a shame really. They don’t represent the gun owner as much as the manufacturers today. They were once a reputable civil rights org and now are more of a lo

It’s a shame really. They don’t represent the gun owner as much as the manufacturers today. They were once a reputable civil rights org and now are more of a lobby. I hope a new civil rights organization begins to lead and is able not be as fundamentalist as the NRA has become and lead the conversation towards a few common sense reforms. It’s an important civil right and one we should cherish. It deserves a group committed to defending the bill of rights while also working to limit access to criminals.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
Yes, "gun rights" has unfortunately become as extremist as politics. Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc. In fact the push from gun rights advocates is to move in the opposite direction: to allow reciprocal concealed carry in every state, reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc. Poor Dick Metcalf, editor of Guns and Ammo — was shown the door when an editorial of his after Newtown suggested that maybe gun laws were too lax. > He has stated that "way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement" and that "all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be". In terms of specific policies, he supports the requirement of adults getting a concealed carry license to take gun safety and handling classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Metcalf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Metcalf
- ardy42 6y ago
  > reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc. That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only requires that machine guns and silencers be registered and taxed. See this Forgotten Weapons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY. It's for a fully automatic M-16 with a device that makes it sound like an AK-47 that's regulated as a silencer. It was up for auction, but the winner would have to pay double the tax because it's a "two stamp" gun.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    I know, that's why I used "restricted".
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > I know, that's why I used "restricted". Well, I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. restricts ownership to people who can pay the $200 tax and fill out some forms), but I wouldn't describe that as a meaningful "restrict[ion on] ownership," which I think would be things like bans or hard-to-get licensing requirements.
      - wl 6y ago
        With the Hughes amendment closing the machinegun registry, it effectively restricts machinegun ownership to those who can afford to pay $5,000 for a low quality item and $20,000 or more for something for something decent.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    You can't register new full-auto weapons since the 1986 Hughes Amendment.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  The NFA is an outdated, obsolete and unconstitutional. You need a $200 tax stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a short barrel rifle, but not for a .556 AR or AK "Pistol", even though they are almost identical. You can't put a vertical forward grip on your AR "Pistol" because then it would become an illegal AOW (any other weapon). But if you put a bipod or some other substitute on it, then it's still a handgun. You need a $200 stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a suppressor, even though in other countries with supposedly stricter gun laws, suppressors are over the counter items. You can't modify your gun to shoot full-auto, but you can put a binary trigger on it, which fires 1 shot when you pull the trigger, and another when you release it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eol8fvMfENc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eol8fvMfENc
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc. Why would people who's seen their rights restricted in piecemeal fashion over the last century be willing to compromise? Seems perfectly logical for them to draw a line in the sand and not give an inch.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I think because a plurality, or nearly, favors stricter gun laws. I believe it’s very likely this plurality will grow and the risk gun owners face is they won’t be the ones leading the discussion, or even have a seat at the table. This is an opportunity to lead and propose effective solutions that don’t infringe. Otherwise the plurality could grow and just do it on their terms. Or get large enough to revoke 2a (which wound be awful imo) and use military force to confiscate firearms and lock offenders in prison.
    - MrMember 6y ago
      Gun owners already don't have a seat at the table when it comes to gun control laws. There is no room for discussion, no give and take, just take.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    I suspect they'll lose everything then.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Pro-2A folks push back against further restrictions because the restrictions are already numerous and do not achieve their stated aim. Limiting magazine sizes is really annoying for people who comply with the law - it has no affect on those breaking it. Extending and manufacturing many common magazines is trivial. Red flag laws are used before a crime is committed to limit a right. There is no defense to them since you can't defend a non-crime and it is impossible to reclaim your property. They are ripe for abuse by anyone upset at you. There is already a safe storage requirement AND a mandate that locks be issued with a firearm. What is not required is that someone spend $400 or more for a 200lb box that may not be practical to install in an apartment - a requirement which would most heavily impact poor and minority firearm owners. I have debated many folks who support gun control - they believe people do not have a right to bear arms, often do not understand firearms or the current firearm laws, and are afraid of firearms. One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements. If you think voter ID is a naked attempt at jim crow, you have no right demanding licensing requirements for firearms.
  - weaksauce 6y ago
    > One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements. Except those laws are there on the books next to states with laws that are basically non-existent for gun control. so it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun. regardless of your stance on guns that's not a good argument.
    - wl 6y ago
      With some exceptions not relevant here (e.g. people holding Federal Firearms Licenses), it is unlawful to buy a handgun in a state where one is not a resident. No gun store will sell or transfer a handgun to a non-resident. And if the state in question allows face to face private transactions, federal law requires the seller determine if the buyer is a resident of the state.
aerostable_slug 6y ago
Gun manufacturers are represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a separate lobbying organization that, while mostly ignored due to the media's fascination with painting the NRA as the root of the world's evils, is in fact well funded and a presence on the hill.
aksss 6y ago
>manufacturers There’s plenty of room to criticize the NRA, but this doesn’t seem on point. The industry lobby is the NSSF. The NRA does far more than politics that is of practical benefit to range operators (insurance, startup and ops guidance), individual gun owners (training, safety, local organization), and sports (event facilitation, sponsorship, material support, rule-making). Many people outside the gun world don’t see that at all, but it’s what makes the destruction of the NRA all the more important to the gun control lobby. I agree the NRA needs to “be better”, but let’s not forget that much of the gun community are enthusiasts, in that they are fans of the manufacturers the same way a comic book fan supports Marvel and DC. They want more product, they enjoy ads, they enjoy events. They are hardly victims of the manufacturers any more than a motorcycle enthusiast is a victim of Ducati.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Yes, "gun rights" has unfortunately become as extremist as politics. Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc. In fact the push from gun rights advocates is to move in the opposite direction: to allow reciprocal concealed carry in every state, reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc. Poor Dick Metcalf, editor of Guns and Ammo — was shown the door when an editorial of his after Newtown suggested that maybe gun laws were too lax. > He has stated that "way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement" and that "all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be". In terms of specific policies, he supports the requirement of adults getting a concealed carry license to take gun safety and handling classes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Metcalf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Metcalf

ardy42 6y ago
> reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc. That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only requires that machine guns and silencers be registered and taxed. See this Forgotten Weapons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY. It's for a fully automatic M-16 with a device that makes it sound like an AK-47 that's regulated as a silencer. It was up for auction, but the winner would have to pay double the tax because it's a "two stamp" gun.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  I know, that's why I used "restricted".
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I know, that's why I used "restricted". Well, I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. restricts ownership to people who can pay the $200 tax and fill out some forms), but I wouldn't describe that as a meaningful "restrict[ion on] ownership," which I think would be things like bans or hard-to-get licensing requirements.
    - wl 6y ago
      With the Hughes amendment closing the machinegun registry, it effectively restricts machinegun ownership to those who can afford to pay $5,000 for a low quality item and $20,000 or more for something for something decent.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  You can't register new full-auto weapons since the 1986 Hughes Amendment.
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
The NFA is an outdated, obsolete and unconstitutional. You need a $200 tax stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a short barrel rifle, but not for a .556 AR or AK "Pistol", even though they are almost identical. You can't put a vertical forward grip on your AR "Pistol" because then it would become an illegal AOW (any other weapon). But if you put a bipod or some other substitute on it, then it's still a handgun. You need a $200 stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a suppressor, even though in other countries with supposedly stricter gun laws, suppressors are over the counter items. You can't modify your gun to shoot full-auto, but you can put a binary trigger on it, which fires 1 shot when you pull the trigger, and another when you release it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eol8fvMfENc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eol8fvMfENc
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc. Why would people who's seen their rights restricted in piecemeal fashion over the last century be willing to compromise? Seems perfectly logical for them to draw a line in the sand and not give an inch.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I think because a plurality, or nearly, favors stricter gun laws. I believe it’s very likely this plurality will grow and the risk gun owners face is they won’t be the ones leading the discussion, or even have a seat at the table. This is an opportunity to lead and propose effective solutions that don’t infringe. Otherwise the plurality could grow and just do it on their terms. Or get large enough to revoke 2a (which wound be awful imo) and use military force to confiscate firearms and lock offenders in prison.
  - MrMember 6y ago
    Gun owners already don't have a seat at the table when it comes to gun control laws. There is no room for discussion, no give and take, just take.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  I suspect they'll lose everything then.
vorpalhex 6y ago
Pro-2A folks push back against further restrictions because the restrictions are already numerous and do not achieve their stated aim. Limiting magazine sizes is really annoying for people who comply with the law - it has no affect on those breaking it. Extending and manufacturing many common magazines is trivial. Red flag laws are used before a crime is committed to limit a right. There is no defense to them since you can't defend a non-crime and it is impossible to reclaim your property. They are ripe for abuse by anyone upset at you. There is already a safe storage requirement AND a mandate that locks be issued with a firearm. What is not required is that someone spend $400 or more for a 200lb box that may not be practical to install in an apartment - a requirement which would most heavily impact poor and minority firearm owners. I have debated many folks who support gun control - they believe people do not have a right to bear arms, often do not understand firearms or the current firearm laws, and are afraid of firearms. One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements. If you think voter ID is a naked attempt at jim crow, you have no right demanding licensing requirements for firearms.
- weaksauce 6y ago
  > One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements. Except those laws are there on the books next to states with laws that are basically non-existent for gun control. so it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun. regardless of your stance on guns that's not a good argument.
  - wl 6y ago
    With some exceptions not relevant here (e.g. people holding Federal Firearms Licenses), it is unlawful to buy a handgun in a state where one is not a resident. No gun store will sell or transfer a handgun to a non-resident. And if the state in question allows face to face private transactions, federal law requires the seller determine if the buyer is a resident of the state.

aerostable_slug 6y ago

Gun manufacturers are represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a separate lobbying organization that, while mostly ignored due to the media's fascination with painting the NRA as the root of the world's evils, is in fact well funded and a presence on the hill.

aksss 6y ago

>manufacturers There’s plenty of room to criticize the NRA, but this doesn’t seem on point. The industry lobby is the NSSF. The NRA does far more than politics that is of practical benefit to range operators (insurance, startup and ops guidance), individual gun owners (training, safety, local organization), and sports (event facilitation, sponsorship, material support, rule-making). Many people outside the gun world don’t see that at all, but it’s what makes the destruction of the NRA all the more important to the gun control lobby. I agree the NRA needs to “be better”, but let’s not forget that much of the gun community are enthusiasts, in that they are fans of the manufacturers the same way a comic book fan supports Marvel and DC. They want more product, they enjoy ads, they enjoy events. They are hardly victims of the manufacturers any more than a motorcycle enthusiast is a victim of Ducati.