NRA does what it must

Unfortunately, given but two realistic choices the NRA must weigh the good and the bad with any choice.  And even after the Bush presidency, it remains the fact that the right to keep and bear arms suffers far greater infringment by government at all levels than any other of our constitutional rights. Furthermore, respect for our rights by government is of little value if the government forces us to accept infringment of our rights at the hands of criminals.

Hunting and collecting are fine, respectable pasttimes, but without the individual right to shoot down burglars, muggers, rapists and carjackers we would effectively have no right to privacy in the home (infringed by burglars), no right to control our own bodies (infringed by rapists and muggers), no right to travel (infringed by muggers and carjackers), and no right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures (infringed by burglars, muggers and car-jackers).

No, your complaint should be against those who by creating a gun control movement forced the NRA to become political.

by Frank Silbermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 6:58:11 AM
 

The NRA dose what it must

Some of your observations are correct it is about rights and more. 

Take for example my aunt Marcie she exercises her right to carry a firearm.  She has evaded mental health intervention all her life. She says that communists sneak into her bathroom and write secret messages to each other.  She legally carries a .357 mag handgun.  If she is in a shopping center and one of her delusions hit, draws and starts shooting, do we classify her as a freedom fighter?

My great uncle was a traffic cop who was shot to death during a routine traffic stop – how would the NRA classify his death - the neutralizing of an oppressive force or homicide?

And just where do you think potential criminals and criminals get their guns from?  You see, they hate gun control too and for the same reasons you do.  Obviously by keeping gun laws hard to enforce, The NRA has insured that there are bad people with guns and you need to buy a gun to defend yourself from what we have created.

by Rabbi (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 108 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:27:21 AM
 

Misses the point of the 2nd Article !

Your crazy aunt is the exception and not relevant to the law because people legally declared mentally incompetent are normally not allowed to buy guns anyway.  Not related to the NRA issue.

I used to be a cop so I know about getting shot in the line of duty. It has happened to friends of mine.  I also know people who are live because they were able to legally defend themselves when their home was invaded. So when I balance the risk to police, who sign on for that risk willingly in order to protect citizens vs. a citizen who is not one who took the job, I am happy to know that now and then the good guy can win. I know the cops seldom arrive in time to help in these situations.  We only get the call after everything has already taken place....too late.

As for criminals getting guns...they will anyway, just as they get drugs or anything else they want but can't have.  Law abiding citizens won't buy black market weapons so they would remain unarmed even as the criminal still has a gun.

But that is NOT the point of the 2nd Amendment at all. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with either hunting or shooting someone who breaks into your home.  That was never even contemplated by the writers of the Bill of Rights who took hunting for granted to feed their families and did not worry about home invasions.

Having just used their guns to defeat and oust the supressive rule of the British, they realized that the only way to assure our survival against a future oppression was to be armed and able to drive away the oppressors.  Weapons were ment to be our protection against our own government should it run astray, or against an invader should they progress past our shores, making an invasion much more dangerous for them.

This is why the 2nd article to the Bill of Rights remains important. Just as in Iraq, an armed citizenry presents a serious threat to oppression from a superior force because eventually it has to come down to a face-to-face to succeed.

by Paul Kruger (33 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 275 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 9:02:14 AM
 

Criminals cannot infring rights.

A criminal or individual cannot infring on your rights unless done so under "color of law" if they are acting in an official governmental capacity. 

Rights are "constitutionl" and that document only protects rights from government infringment ( Bush aside ) the government is not normally considered to be a criminal.

If you shoot a criminal and the government takes action against you, that may or may not be an infringment of a right depending on the circumstances.

by Paul Kruger (33 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 275 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 8:44:38 AM
 

Obama is a Democrat

I think you had better look at Obama's very small record in congress. He is the most anti-gun  person in the race for the presidential seat. That includes all who ran previous to him and McCain locking up their parties. This is why the NRA picks the least of two evils. Things like the Brady law behind Obama with Kennedy's blessing, and even you as a cop or past cop will not being carrying anything but your other gun in your hand. Sorry Paul, I don't buy your argument at all.

by Jay Timmins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 105 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 6:11:59 AM