A Sportsman’s Viewpoint: We Need a Moderate Alternative to the NRA

Many hunters would support sensible reforms against large-magazine firearms but have no organization that speaks for them

  • Share
  • Read Later
Michael Melford

I used to live in the country and go to a gun club for the skeet and trap shooting. I went there on Sundays because that was the only day the club was open to nonmembers. Like many shooting clubs, this one would only grant membership if I also joined the National Rifle Association. That wasn’t going to happen. While I like some of the NRA’s youth gun-safety programs, I cannot support its policy aims.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 13.7 million people went hunting in the U.S. last year, a nearly 5% increase from 2001. By contrast, the NRA has 4 million members. There are likely plenty of reasons why two-thirds of hunters (as well as millions of gun owners) don’t belong to the group, apathy and financial hardship among them, but politics undoubtedly play a role. And reaching out to pro-hunting moderates is perhaps our best hope for ending the national stalemate over gun control.

(MORE: When Massacres Force Change: Lessons from the U.K. and Australia)

“I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” West Virginia Senator Joe “Dead Aim” Manchin said on Morning Joe,one of several pro-gun politicians who have started to speak out in favor of sensible reforms after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting.”

Neither do I. And I’m guessing the same is true for many other sportsmen.

Unfortunately, this constituency has no organization speaking to and for it. That’s why if philanthropists and influential leaders really want to do something about gun safety, they should launch an advocacy group for sportsmen that will provide a legitimate alternative to today’s gun lobby. The solution to our gun problem is not to try to fight through the same old politics — rather, it’s to change the political landscape.

(MORE: The Myth of Second Amendment Exceptionalism)

A moderate sporting organization could oppose knee-jerk proposals like banning “semiautomatic” guns (a class that includes many legitimate sporting arms) while supporting common-sense steps to improve public safety, including the strict regulation of — or even prohibition against — the sale of large-magazine firearms that have no legitimate sporting use. At the same time, such an organization could take on all the issues of more immediate concern to sportsmen than the Second Amendment, in particular the loss of wildlife habitat. The NRA and its even more radical cousins are pretty much exclusively focused on maintaining access to all kinds of firearms and ammunition. It’s an economic agenda to preserve the interests of the companies that make these products, not a pro-sportsmen’s agenda to preserve natural resources and open space; the gun lobby frequently supports politicians with horrendous records on environmental issues. Its narrow focus, as Field & Stream columnist George Reiger observed a few years ago, could lead us to become a nation where people can have “a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them.”

It’s worth noting that hunters have tried to start a pro-gun-control group before. Ray Schoenke, who used to play for the Washington Redskins and ran for governor in Maryland, launched the American Hunters and Shooters Association in 2005; it was defunct by 2010. Monster.com founder Andrew McKelvey started a similar group, Americans for Gun Safety, that quickly fizzled (before merging with the centrist D.C. think tank Third Way). Both of these organizations were hamstrung by having close ties with traditional gun-control organizations, and that made them an easy target for the gun lobby.

(MORE: The Backlash Against ‘I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother’)

A moderate alternative to the NRA would need authenticity to succeed. And deep pockets too. It would also help if the leader of this new organization could motivate young people to help change the status quo. (Mass shootings may grab our attention, but day-to-day gun violence is the major reason why homicide is the second leading cause of death, after accidents, among young adults.) That’s why I’m nominating Mark Zuckerberg to take up this cause. He’s rich, he has tons of social capital, and in 2011 he pledged to spend a year eating only meat from animals that he had killed. He said he did this to challenge himself to be more thankful for what he has and to be more thoughtful about how we live — ideas sadly lost on today’s gun lobby.

220 comments
DerekLogan
DerekLogan

I got the acronym for this moderate association, and yes, I took it from the Ben Affleck movie. But hey, I think it works: Association for Responsible Gun Ownership (ARGO). Anybody want to run with this?

endthedrugwar
endthedrugwar

No that it ever will be banned, but even if hunting is banned some day, so what? Killing animals for fun (or food) is a privilege, like having a swimming pool. It is not a right like self-defense. Is Rotherham saying he doesn't understand why people are more active in supporting a right over a privilege? Moreover hunting is if not dying out, then certainly less common than it used to be.

As a per capita rate hunting peaked decades ago, and has been on the decline ever since. Rotherman carefully chose 2001 as his starting point for claiming hunting is increasing for this reason, to make it seem like hunting is as big as it ever was and growing. It isn't. It is pretty much at a historical low point. If Rotherman had bothered to be honest, he would have noted from the source he referenced in his own article (http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm), that the per capita peak was around 1982. During that year there were about 45 million hunting licenses/tags/permits/stamps. While in 2012 there were about 51 million hunting licenses/tags/permits/stamps. But the U.S. population in 1982 was only about 232 million, while in 2012 it was about 314 million. Which works out to about 1.94 hunting licenses per 100K people in 1982, versus 1.62 hunting licenses per 100K people in 2012.

FrankFC
FrankFC

The framers of the US Constitution were far seeing and correct to include the Second Amendment. Trouble is they could never envisage an occupying force arising from within. That occupying force looming as a threat to the USA is the NRA,

Like a virus, the NRA has worked its way little by little into the American psyche . Trouble is it is not one person affected, its millions. That is why a national ban on guns will only challenge and make this virus stronger. What is needed is the adoption of its own methods. Little by little.

Be prepared America. To succeed it will take time, probably twenty years. One state at a time enacting fool and bullet proof gun laws, will eventually run this scourge out of your great country.

MikefromPA
MikefromPA

I get tired of those who criticize the NRA, yet do not join because they claim we do not represent their interests. Last time I checked the NRA goes far beyond gun safety for youths, they also train law enforcement and security guards. They also publish American Hunter, a magazine for members and get involved with legislation to promote and further hunting. Are 30 round magazines needed for hunting? No, but the NRA's primary goal is to preserve our second amendment rights which have everything to do with preventing oppression from our government as well as other governments. For those who need a history lesson a black powder musket was the so called assault rifle during the revolutionary war and citizens owned the same firearm as the army. The semi-auto firearms that are deemed assault rifles are not even close (other than appearance) to what is being used on current battlefields. In summary, if you want your own organization for hunting rights or what you deem as common sense gun control, then go for it. Just don't expect those who believe in the constitution to support you. And I seriously need to understand common sense gun control. Do you really expect any gun owner to believe that a shooter with 10 or 15 round magazines would have killed less people? If so please look up VA tech shooting which was conducted with two handguns; no so called assault rifle. Your primary mission is to enact meaningless gun control measures to whittle away at our rights while achieving no results. That is why organizations such as the NRA and GOA will continue to thrive and gain members. I am proud to be a member of the NRA .

ShaunWheeler
ShaunWheeler

Charming. Another person who kills animals for fun and enjoyment that doesn't consider shooting at clays or paper targets to be a 'sport'.

After they ban the firearms I use in a 3 gun competition how much money do you suppose I'll contribute to defend your right to kill ducks or deer? How about none? 

dontn123
dontn123

"The Ludlow Massacre was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914.
The massacre resulted in the violent deaths of between 19 and 25
people; sources vary but all sources include two women and eleven
children, asphyxiated and burned to death under a single tent. The
deaths occurred after a daylong fight between militia and camp guards
against striking workers. Ludlow was the deadliest single incident in
the southern Colorado Coal Strike, lasting from September 1913 through
December 1914. The strike was organized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) against coal mining companies in Colorado. The three largest companies involved were the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel & Iron Company (CF&I), the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company (RMF), and the Victor-American Fuel Company (VAF).
In retaliation for Ludlow, the miners armed themselves and attacked
dozens of mines over the next ten days, destroying property and engaging
in several skirmishes with the Colorado National Guard along a 40-mile
front from Trinidad to Walsenburg.[1]
The entire strike would cost between 69 and 199 lives. Thomas Franklin
Andrews described it as the "deadliest strike in the history of the
United States".[2]
The Ludlow Massacre was a watershed moment in American labor relations. Historian Howard Zinn
described the Ludlow Massacre as "the culminating act of perhaps the
most violent struggle between corporate power and laboring men in
American history".[3] Congress responded to public outcry by directing the House Committee on Mines and Mining to investigate the incident.[4] Its report, published in 1915, was influential in promoting child labor laws and an eight-hour work day."

Listen and Watch this VIDEO:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDd64suDz1A

almonjer
almonjer

There needs to be an alternative to the anti-gun groups also, bottom line is they don't work-and this tragedy proves it.  I am not in the NRA nor do I own a gun.  I would be considered a left wing liberal based on who I am and what I do for a living, but I have ZERO faith in the anti-gun groups correcting this problem, and sad to say that is why at the end of the day the NRA will win unless a 3rd rail rises out of this tragedy.  Keep in mind as I say this, I am an expert on terrorism, domestic/family violence and I own and entertainment company (I have appeared on and in every media outlet from Rolling Stone to Al Jazeera.  So I know the area well, and what I know is that it is impossible for the groups and individuals that are most in the media on this issue, solving it. Sorry to say it, but we are going to get what we got with Katrina, Super Storm Sandy, BP, Wall Street bailouts, etc.-how many times do these people have to fail America in the worst of ways before we  actually look for other solutions from other people that AVOIDS THE PROBLEM FROM HAPPENING.  These shootings 100% can be prevented with ZERO loss of life...just not from the powers and speakers that be.

Gary42
Gary42

While I understand that quail and pheasant are not considered "big game", has anyone looked into the Boone and Crockett Club founded by Teddy Roosevelt?  Possibly an auxiliary for smaller game or recreational shooters could be established?  Just a thought...

cholbird
cholbird

Instead of starting another gun association why not take back the NRA from the radical right.  When the NRA was first started it was about gun safety and was for nearly a 100 years - then the crazies took over.  I say those of us who want sensible gun control, infiltrate the NRA and along with the 74% already existing members who have said they would support tighter gun regulations - we could oust the existing leadership to a more moderated leadership that would still support the 2nd Amendment and a citizens right to own guns for the purpose of hunting, target and skeet shooting but don't include machine gun style weapons.

dontn123
dontn123

Divide and conquer.  That is what you will see.  When they came for the neighbor down the street you wondered why?  When they came for the neighbor up the street you wondered why?  Finally when they come for you will you have to ask why?  Gun owners are in the middle of a fight for their RIGHT account of CRIMINAL ACTIONS so now is not the time to divide.  CRIMINALS WILL WIN and GAIN.

The .223 aka 5.56 ammo used in so-called AR15 ASSAULT WEAPON is not allowed in sever STATE as a hunting round for DEER aka LARGE GAME because it is not very powerful.  The 5.56 was designed to provide a lightweight bullet that can be used to be carried in LARGE QUANTITY.   Again most STATES and HUNTERS know the .223 is not suitable on a LARGE Game  Animal such as DEER.  The .223 aka 5.56 when aimed properly is a very accurate round but again the ballistics in combat is adequate whereas the operation is questionable.  The M-16 and M4 TRUE ASSAULT MILITARY weapons use the same ammo as the AR15. The lack of proper operation in the Oregon Mall is typical of why American Soldiers have been killed while using the M16 - M4 in combat - the weapons are prone to jamming.  The high capacity magazines make these type weapons even more prone to malfunctions.   

AGAIN The idea was that a .223 aka 5.56 would wound one soldier and as a result cause 2-3 enemy soldiers to quit fighting to attend that 1 wounded soldier.  Plus an INITIAL WOUNDED SOLDIER causes panic and demoralization to remaining soldiers.  

Peirs Morgan on CNN thinks the .223 aka 5.56 is a super weapon has not got a clue yet his IGNORANT RANTING AND RAVING IS BEING SHOWN AS FACT.  Anyone that knows about fire arms should know he is full of BS about the 5.56 ammo being a super round.   The .223 aka 5.56 replaced the .308 aka 7.62 for personal soldier weapons.  The .223 aka 5.56 is also a common NATO round just as the .308 aka 7.62 squad served machine gun.   LOOK IT UP  PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Way-coolJunior
Way-coolJunior

There was a comedian years ago (unfortunately I can't recall his name) who made the observation that, "If you need a 30-round clip to bring down a deer then you need to greatly reexamine your hunting technique." That pretty much sums it up. 

If you have an assault style weapon then you need to admit that it has nothing to do with sport and everything to do with fear...that's where your side of the conversation begins (sure you can use them for target shooting but since you can do the same thing with an old fashion single shot rifle that argument is pretty much moot).   Then lets take a look at the concerns of those who keep such firearms as a "safety measure" against a government that is out to get them.  In these days of drone bombings and long range missiles does anyone really believe that they can offer anything more than token resistance? Probably not.

Moving on to those who say that the shooter in Newton (I refuse to use his name and give him the notoriety his demented mind craved) was able to obtain his weapons from a responsible gun owner (his mother).  You have no concept of what it is to be a responsible gun owner.  This was a woman (who has admittedly paid the price for her error) who took her son - a son that she herself apparently once described as "mentally unstable" -  to a gun range and taught him how to shoot.  No "responsible" gun owner would do such a thing.  That is where your side of the conversation has to begin.  Admitting that there is such a thing as responsible gun ownership and the vast majority of LEGAL gun owners are firmly in that camp. 

It's only after BOTH sides can agree that there is room for compromise that there can be any meaningful discussion. Until then it's just so much hot air and lip service.

Joe999
Joe999

I will not support any politician, company, publication or individualthat supports any further gun control. None of the "scary" rifles in mygun safe hurt anyone last year, the year before that, or EVER. I willnot be made to pay the penalty for the insane, evil acts of oneindividual and neither will several million other lawful gun owners.What did Lanza do with that scary looking rifle that he couldn't havedone with a pistol? Nothing. Or are you deluded enough to think that hewould not have committed the crime if he couldn't get access to thatrifle? Those semi-automatic, "legitimate" sporting rifles you mentionare functionally no different than the scary, black rifles that have yousoiling your panties. In fact, every firearm in existence is derivedfrom military firearms. 

You clearly do not know the purpose for the Second Amendment. Itdoesn't have anything to do with hunting, sporting clays, or targetshooting. It's about defense. Defense of one's self and one's communityagainst corrupt individuals and tyrannical governments. I and my fellowsare rather insistent on maintaining our access to the most efficienttools for such defense. 

 Furthermore, if you think for one secondyou can purchase your own salvation by sacrificing those arms and theirowners that you personally find distasteful then you're woefullymistaken. The first Assault Weapon Ban had no measurable effect oncrime. Another one, if that comes to pass, will yield no more resultthan the first. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, rifles areused in fewer crimes than your shotguns. Both statistics are dwarfed bythe use of handguns in the commission of crimes. 

Congratulations, Zumbo.

EduardoAcosta
EduardoAcosta

How come the article didn't state the fact that AR 15's and variants thereof are absolutely used for hunting purposes? 

AnnaSaenz
AnnaSaenz

This is a great article.   Why we do not hear more often about real sportmen or woman ?   Their voices have been silenced by the NRA and their agenda to protect the interests of the gun manufacturers, no matter if the cost is the loss of innocent children.

dms784
dms784

Hello casual reader.  If you wish to discover the real reasons why the gun crazies are so paranoid about laws that restrict personal weapons, read down through these posts.   Apparently they are arming themselves to overthrow the federal government.   And here we thought all along that it was for self defense.   Homeland Security, please take note.

JohnDavidDeatherage
JohnDavidDeatherage

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting skeet or even crime.  The right to bear arms provides citizens a last defense against oppressive tyrannical governments.  Changing the 2nd Amendment requires more than simple legislation.

ScottTazewell
ScottTazewell

Iam sorry but being moderate is not the answer, The shootings are tragic, but Iam a taxpayer, I know I paid for the young men and women in this country to be trained, and to only see them become soldiers, I paid for the bullets and the Gun and I paid for the availability for him or her to sail across the ocean and to conduct the tragic events upon humanity and it is called war, Children have died due to my tax dollars. Being moderate will not grant me my rights, Nor will being vain! If being Moderate would have granted me my freedom then history would have recorded the birth of the constitution as the greatest moment of human negotiations known to man, but that never happen. When I hear Americans on the left proclaim their humanity, this week Iam thinking, you mean to tell me you rise in the morning thinking I have no blood on my hands. All the tax payers in this country has went to war with our troops and all of us have blood on our hands, the left say ban the guns yet lets put them in the hands of our youth and train them to kill and we will pay for it but do not remind us we hired you to kill You live in a Extreme country that was born from an extreme human problem called Tyranny, man willing to see another become a slave, and its extreme to see the slave wanting to be free, Tax payer you have blood on your hands to, we have the convience to send out children off to war, the children and our enemies have to deal with the tragic events of war

mauisunset
mauisunset

Why do we paint bulls-eyes on our kids in public school?

American public schools are a total disaster - a 100% failure.

America ranks below Hungary in K-12 education with China #1.

What do you get when you round up 800 little kids and put them into a public school with NO guns on the property?

A victim-rich target for the insane and terrorists in America.

How many more mass murders do we need to learn this lesson....

PeteFlanagan
PeteFlanagan

I once asked a gun-grabber how he could be opposed to someone owning a shotgun for dove hunting.  His reply?  "To a dove, a dove hunt is nothing more than a drive-by shooting.  That is why we're going to take your shotguns too."

If it wasn't for the NRA, the shotgunners would have to resort to needlepoint on Sunday afternoons because there'd be no trap, no skeet, no sporting clays in which to participate.  Your beloved Berettas and Benellis would be hanging over the fireplace with their receivers welded shut were it not for the tenacity and resolve of the NRA's 4+ Million members.

These facts are not lost on guys like Rotherham, who is nothing but a shill for the gun grabbers.  He and his ilk sit on the sidelines taking potshots at the people who really care about the shooting sports.  Rotherham and his pals stand for nothing and never will - which is precisely why we're all better off with them sitting in the dark baying at the moon of moderation.

VondaRochelle
VondaRochelle

I did not write the following and I'm not sure who did so I cannot give this person credit but it is worth reading concerning the second amendment.

"The founders wrote exhaustively on this subject, and there is really no room for equivocation. The founders wanted us to be as heavily armed as the Swiss, and ready to "refresh the Tree of Liberty with the blood of the patriots and tyrants." They intended that we fight tyrannical government...with the best weapons possible! And the inclusion of "Militia" here underlies the fact that this amendment was to prohibit the states from limiting citizens' right to arm themselves!

This is not about hunting or target practice. This is the amendment considered for generations as the one that guarantees the rest. 

Most of us can't fathom that anymore.  That is a criminal shame, because we're ignoring all the lessons of human history and human behavior since Cain slew Abel when we get this wrong.

It is historically spooky when a nation that trusts its citizens  with the right to vote no longer trusts them with the power to protect themselves.

Consider the facts of US history; particularly in the racist, oppressive origin of gun control laws, and the number of times the 2nd amendment served minorities (In 1957, the right saved the NAACP in Monroe, North Carolina at a key time in the Civil rights movement).  Consider the frighteningly rapid militarization and expansion of our civilian-focused armed forces.

Turn around the common phrase you've no doubt heard before..."If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to fear from armed citizens:...right?"

I understand we have problems and school shootings should never take place.  Our children should be well protected at all times.  Disarming citizens does not in any way secure their safety.  I am not a gun collector nor a member of the NRA.  I cannot  understand how people start throwing rocks at the NRA and gun owners when this is a mental health issue, 

I like the comment posted by ZenGalacticore "That collective consciousness doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the elite-controlled media, or of the idealists among us living in a delusional utopian fantasyland.Get real fellow citizens, and do a little Google research about Latin America, its crime rate, and its gun laws."

The elite controlled media. How accurate are those four words that sum up what is happening in our nation.  If we continue to change our Constitution we continue to do away with the very rights it was written to protect.  Our military has fought and died to protect our country and the rights of freedom of our citizens.  It is nothing more than a disgrace to make those sacrifices of no value.  It is especially disgraceful when we make those sacrifices of no value due to our own government. 

ZenGalacticore
ZenGalacticore

We already have a, "moderate alternative to the National Rifle Association", it's called the collective consciousness of the American people!

And guess what? That collective consciousness doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the elite-controlled media, or of the idealists among us living in a delusional utopian fantasyland.

Get real fellow citizens, and do a little Google research about Latin America, its crime rate, and its gun laws. 

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

The second amendment is not the issue.

As a society, we have the following problem: 

Mentally ill people have easy access to guns thatshoot six bullets per second in a society where mental illness islargely ignored until a person kills someone. 

What do we do about it?

Various solutions, include but are not limited to the following:

1) Improve security of all public places (i.e., security check points andblast walls, security guards, weapon detection systems, safe rooms,arming guards and other employees, etc.).

2) Arming all citizens with assault weapons, body armor and shielded vehicles.

3) Identifying and treating violent mentally ill people early in life and keeping themaway from weapons (i.e., assault guns, bombs, etc.) that can easily killa lot of people in a short period of time. 

4) Reducing access to weapons that let someone kill a lot of people in a short period of time. 

Given that an assault weapon is useless in the face of modern militaryweapons like RPG guns, bazookas, rockets, grenade launchers, helicoptergunships, tanks, jets and the like, some people argue that we might aswell remove assault weapons from the general public. If you don't wantto do this, then fine.

Maybe you can suggest a way to make sure thatyour assault weapon will never be stolen by a crazy person or child orfriend on drugs or whatever.  There should be some way to enforce yoursuggested approach across America. Alternatively, if someone steals yourassault weapon and kills someone, perhaps we should rewrite the law tomake you an accomplice to the crime and thereby subject to jail timeand/or heavy fines and civil suits. After all, rights should also have responsibilities.

endthedrugwar
endthedrugwar

In per capita terms hunting has decreased by about 20% since the early 1980s. So why would the NRA focus on a privilege that is practiced by fewer and fewer people, rather than on self-defense rights that more people increasingly support. Does Rotherman think lobbying organizations should willingly go extinct by ignoring demographic changes? If so then let him name even one lobbying organization in any field that has ever done that.

And the American Hunters and Shooters Association died because it deserved to. Would an organization that claimed to be in favor of sensible abortion laws survive if it had been founded by anti-abortion activists? No. The American Hunters and Shooters Association was not started for or by hunters or shooters. It was nothing more than a front for the same groups that had been trying to ban guns before.

Finally, there are plenty of hunting organizations and lobbying groups around, like Ducks Unlimited, Buckmasters, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, just to name a few. Rotherman clearly doesn't believe guns are okay for anything other than killing animals for fun (or food), and he is entitled to his opinion, as the rest of us are to ours.

dontn123
dontn123

AS RECENTLY as Katrina Aftermath the Govt sent soldiers into homes in the areas hit by the storms and flood waters.   ALL REMAINING CITIZENS were DISARMED and weapons taken.  It took years afterwords for people to get their guns back and when they did the guns were not usable account had been water soaked and rusted beyond use.   Your GUNS AND I MEAN ALL YOUR GUNS WILL BE TAKEN.  An Inch is as good as a mile.  You BETTER WAKE UP. 

The regulations that are on the board are to REGULATE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with more restrictions on their RIGHTS.  

Oh and as for the Forms that are filled out to purchase a gun - a LIBERAL JUDGE RULED back around 1970 that criminals could not be arrested for lying on the form account you can;t incriminate yourself.  Better look it up.  That is why when FELONS try to buy guns through an FFL and nothing happens when kicked out by the back ground check.   The GOVT LOVES CRIMINALS.

thmshunt
thmshunt

You have some valid points but, still the fact remains 20 babies killed in less then three minutes. Certainly poweful enough don't you think? Our rights are secure but, what about the right to live without the fear of armed citizens with Semi Auto high capacitymagazine weapons shooting our schools,parks malls,streets,cinemas? Take them away make them fixed magazines capable of holding three to fur rounds. Problem solved right?

jdc232
jdc232

@Way-coolJunior 

I completely agree with you Way-cool.  I am an avid hunter and consider myself a sportsman.  I own a shotgun, rifle, handgun and a Bow.  All of which i use to hunt with.  You have pointed out several facts that I have thought about for a long time.  If i can't kill a deer with the 5 shells that I can put into my Rem 870 then I need to practice shooting before I go into the field.  What I don't need is a gun that holds more bullets.  The point of a gun with more than 5 bullets is to kill people, or defend yourself against dinosaurs because we all know that they would require several shots and when you hit them once they would probably be running towards you to eat you.  But i don't hunt dinosaurs and i know no-one who does so I find it total crap that all of these so called sportsman on here would even be concerned about not being able to have an assault rifle that holds 30 rounds when any decent sportsman never needs that many shots, for any reason.  Additionally, all of these Wolverines who are stocking up for the moment when the government comes to take "us" over have watched Red Dawn one too many times.  You are right, the conversation has to start being about responsible gun ownership and, i would add, reasonable guns to own.  There is no reason that the general public needs access to 30 round clips, or i think, even 10 round clips.  There is no reason that any person who wants to buy a gun shouldn't be subject to an extensive background check.  There is no reason that we shouldn't have some laws that prevent guns in mentally unstable households.   When 20 six and seven year old children are ruthlessly gunned down, it makes me sick to think that people would still have the mentality of someone like Joe999.  Us responsible gun owners, responsible sportsman, responsible targeters, collectors, etc need to step up and make our voices heard over the those of the doomsday preparers and the "no guns at all" voices on the extreme edges.  I think we owe it to our children, our 20 children who were gunned down because we didn't have this conversation earlier.  It's time for us to get into this conversation with reasonable, legitimate, and practical solutions that we can offer to it.  Thank you for your post.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@AnnaSaenz  Actually the NRA did publish that information to all it's members. We all know there are lunatics and criminals out there, the difference is we don't expect you to make yourself helpless against them so we can "Feel Safe" when no one is safe this side of the grave.

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@JohnDavidDeatherage A helicopter gunship, cruise missile, tank, jet with rockets or bombs or small nuclear weapon can easily cancel the advantage of assault weapons.

kl_0
kl_0

@JohnDavidDeatherage yes, exactly.  Besides, the teenage suicide-murder shooter problem only started around 25-30 years ago with the advent of widespread prescribing of antidepressants (SSRI's) to children and teenagers..  Guns are not the problem, pharmaceutical companies and the FDA are.  

We need to have long guns with decent power and large magazines because pistols against long guns are a losing battle.  A citizenry armed with long guns can still take out a tyranny armed with helicopters, tanks, jets, and rpgs, but it can't do that with just pistols.  Take away the weapons and you eventually turn citizens into subjects.

 It is amusing when people say "the only point of these weapons is to kill humans efficiently" -- YES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT... If you want to disarm the citizens, you first better disarm the governments.

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@ScottTazewell So what is your solution to the following problem: Mentally ill people have easy access to guns that shoot six bullets per second in a society where mental illness is largely ignored until a person kills someone. 

AnnaSaenz
AnnaSaenz

It was Adam's mom, a "law abiding citizen" who purchase the guns and took his son to the gun range.  If you pro killers stop getting these weapons, we would all be safe.   It is stupid to think that more guns are going to prevent more violance.  The incident of mass shootings has decreased in countries that have strict gun laws, such as England and Israel.   Unfortunately, there is people like you and the NRA who create lies to protect their killing toys.

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@mauisunset So what is your solution to the following problem: Mentally ill people have easy access to guns that shoot six bullets per second in a society where mental illness is largely ignored until a person kills someone....And, remember it is not just schools that are being targeted. It is also shopping malls, churches and so on. 

Should we all carry automatic weapons and wear body armor to go grocery shopping? I don't recall that our Found Fathers carried guns with them all of the time and wore body armor. Even 50 years ago, it was very rare to have the mass killings that we have now.

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@PeteFlanagan So what is your solution to the following problem: Mentally ill people have easy access to guns that shoot six bullets per second in a society where mental illness is largely ignored until a person kills someone. 

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@VondaRochelle So what is your solution to the following problem: Mentally ill people have easy access to guns that shoot six bullets per second in a society where mental illness is largely ignored until a person kills someone. 

ExNuke
ExNuke

@JeffreyWhite  A dinner roll is an "Assault Weapon" if you throw it at a politician so yes it would be useless against an aircraft carrier. A single shot deer rifle is more dangerous to the government and politicians than a "scary black rifle". The Army has never been the problem.


Every year thousands of people drown, some in oceans, lakes, swimming pools, bathtubs, buckets and soup bowls. You are only pushing the agenda to ban soup bowls.

RobertG.BerryJr.
RobertG.BerryJr.

Why don't you go ask a Vietnam vet how easy itis to defeat armed civilians.  Or better yet ask my grandson and his fellow veterans.  I'm quite sure they will tell you all about it.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@thmshunt  The "Right to Live Without Fear" is right up there beside the "Right Not to Drown In Deep Water" and the only reason for anyone but a child to live in FEAR is because they have willingly made themselves helpless. You do have the right to try to stay alive but nobody else has any duty to do it for you if you choose to ignore your own responsibility. Learning to swim does not guarantee you will never drown and owning/carrying a gun doesn't mean you will will never be a victim of a violent crime but if you aren't willing to try to look out for yourself that is a choice you can only make for yourself, not everyone else.  

dontn123
dontn123

@thmshunt    Unfortunately you are not looking at the shooters as CRIMINALS that PLAN their CRIMES.  Look at Timothy McVeigh  and the Bath Salt School Massacre where bombs and cars were used to carry out the destruction.  in both cases the death tolls were much higher then any shooting.

We can't regulate criminals because they do not follow the law of man.  The News Press has stated Adam Lanza killed these peole so it is open and closed case.  Not really because the police have to gather evidence to present to a Court to make the final ruling. Imagine if the News Paper stated you did something and you go to jail without a jury or trial.  Where was Due Process of the LAW?  

What everyone seems to miss is the USA was former by Founding Fathers that had just fought off an oppressive GOVT aka KING.  The Bill of Rights resulted and the Second Amendment Provides the STEEL TEETH to PROTECT IT.  This has already been ruled upon by Our Courts as a RIGHT not a privilege.  Driving a car is a privilege.   The Second Amendment states Miltia well that would mean in modern times a Semi Auto AR-15 since the Military has FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES known as M-16 and M4.   Have you ever seen movie RED DAWN?  

Have you ever heard of the 1914 MASSACRE IN COLORADO 


JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@kl_0 @JohnDavidDeatherage A helicopter gunship, cruise missile, jet with rockets or bombs or small nuclear weapon can easily cancel the advantage of assault weapons.

kl_0
kl_0

@JohnDavidDeatherage BTW.. SSRI's come with warnings about suicidal tendencies.  This is well documented.. but it took the FDA 13 years to admit it.  Check out ssristories.com for thousands of cases where these drugs led to pushing already unstable people over the edge.  We don't perform proper neuroimaging on patients, opting instead for unscientific and brief behavioral studies and reliance on nonobjective anecdotal evidence from parents.  The conflicts of interest are on both sides of the psychiatrists desk -- the parents just want a quick fix and will believe anything a "doctor" says, while the doc probably has incentives to sell drugs on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies (who are also heavily bribing the regulators and politicians).  It's unfortunate because the capability to examine neurotransmitter activity in the brain has been around for a long time in the form of fMRI's and PET scans.  You can get them done for <$1500 cash cost (more for insurance).  This is certainly a health care problem.. But we'll never have longlasting and efficient health care when our central bank prints 70% of our entire bond issuance... this state is failing.  We need to rebuild.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@JeffreyWhite @mauisunset  Shoot them until they cease to be a threat. And NO, mass killings have been around for centuries and every weapon ever conceived has been used, The same day (week?) as the Newton tragedy 20+ children in China were killed with a knife. 

24 hour wallowing in the miseries of others has only become profitable in the last 50 years.

PeteFlanagan
PeteFlanagan

Discouraging me from purchasing firearms or even forcing me to surrender my firearms is not a solution to your stated problem.  Run your second sentence backwards and you will arive at a solution.  Stop ignoring mental illness and provide treatment settings where mentally ill people do not have access to firearms exhibiting any rate of fire.  Dreamy-eyed sociologists have created an environment where we are expected to live with the misfits rather than forcing the misfits to play by our rules.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@JeffreyWhite @VondaRochelle  Shoot them until they cease to be a threat and that may take a gun that shoots six bullets a second and more than 7 rounds in the "high capacity assault clip with a deadly bayonet lug and shoulder thing that goes up".

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@RobertG.BerryJr.

So, when the military comes after you with RPG guns, bazookas, rockets, grenade launchers, helicopter gunships and the like, how many seconds do you think you will be able to defend your house with your assault weapon before your house and family are blown to bits?

 The only way to fight the modern military with assault weapons is with gorilla warefare.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@JeffreyWhite @kl_0 @JohnDavidDeatherage  Bloomberg would be very put out if you dropped a "small nuclear weapon" on Wall Street. Now Washington D.C. would be another story. You had best check your life insurance for an "acts of war" exclusion before you endorse a cruise missile strike on you next door neighbor. Your heirs would be upset if they didn't get paid.

AnnaSaenz
AnnaSaenz

that is so stupid.  If the military wants to get you all it has to do is send drones or missiles to where you live.  You would not even have a chance to look for a gun before your entire house and family is destroyed.   This argument has no logic.  How many children need to die for you to understand that?

JeffreyWhite
JeffreyWhite

@GregWoolhouse Thanks! That is what I get for typing late at night...and, yes, guerilla warfare can be effective if the military tries to avoid killing civilians. However, one small strategic nuclear bomb can easily put an end to that problem.

So, what is your solution to the problem that I outlined in my original post?

GregWoolhouse
GregWoolhouse

Why do gun control advocates seem to be allergic to history books?  One need look no further than the experiences of the US and USSR in Afganistan to see how a relatively small insurgent force equiped with only small arms can fight a hi-tech, big budget military to a standstill, or even defeat.

Oh, and it's called GUERILLA warfare.  "Gorilla" warfare was largely discredited when the late K. Kong was easily dispatched by several biplanes.

RobertG.BerryJr.
RobertG.BerryJr.

Ask youself this question.  Why is it when the government executes any of these mass assualts on citizens they always use police agencies instead of the military?  And forget the Posse Comitatus Act.  That can be repealed because it is a statute not an amendment.  It is because the military is sowrn to protect the constitution, nothing else.  They drilled into us in the Navy that in an intruder alert we were to shoot the intruder, even if he/she took a hostage, even if th ehostage was the POTUS.  Defending your house against the government isn't what the 2nd amendment is about.  It is about joining with your fellow Americans when the government becomes a dictatorship to form an armed force.  To do that, people need to be armed.  Until 1989 the federal militia act said the regular militia was every able-bodied male 17 to 45 and armed the same as a regular foot solider in the Army.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@AnnaSaenz  How many US children are YOU willing for the Government to kill to take out YOUR neighbor who is not willing to let a Politician determine what color socks to wear on Tuesday.

ExNuke
ExNuke

@JeffreyWhite @GregWoolhouse  You haven't outlined any problem, you have only shown that willingly making yourself and forcing everyone around you to be helpless creates a problem. 340 million people and in any calender quarter ONE of them nuts up and no one is around to do anything about it before they kill themselves. Lets set up MORE shooting galleries with helpless human targets, that will solve everything.