NRA Compares Assault Weapons Ban To Racial Discrimination

Here is post you have to read to believe Now below is a quote from them . I personally think to limit a magazine capacity to 10 rnds does   not impede somebody;s ability to defend them selves  in any resonable way  .If you feel  you need  more than ten rounds 1 you delusional 2 an exceptionaly bad shot and really should not even have a drivers license 3 If you got that many enemies those extra rounds ain't going to save you
("banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics.")
Well last I heard the Declaration did not have a line We hold these truth to be self evident that all guns are
created equal and are endowed by their manufacter wirth certain unalienable rights life liberty and pursuit of happiness .It does in the consitution well regulated militia. While I do not believe in the old line that  every assailant   will  magicly be able to obtain somebody's firearm
I do not see life as a Chuck Norris  film Invasion USA with hordes of Arab terrorist who   were going after the American public or
Charelie Bronson 's death wish   sequals  scernio with hordes of street thugs after them either . and   while entertaing Red  Dawn was not very likely either  !!!.  Yes there are some unstable folks out there that should be locked up, but the disaster arrived from defunding the mental health system . If want  you  to complain about Muslim terrorist you never would have had that menace if the US did   not fund Muslim extremist against the former Soviets . To be both fair
and realistic no religion has a monoply on extremism Christainty had the Salem witch hunts the Inquustion various holy wars the crusades and  persuecution of   scholars etc

/. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/new-nra-talking-point-banning-assault-weapons-i/192021
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
hd70642 hd70642
46-50, M
9 Responses Jan 7, 2013

Nobody in their right mind would allow anyone in the public the privilege to own a wild animal as a pet because of the undue risk it imposes on the general public . To be honest municipalities are not going back to the days of locking up the unhinged so the damage the unhinged can inflict with a high capacity weapon posses to general public is too great as well ,. They are not coming for you high for your capacity weapons any more than they are mandating that all house that have aluminum utilized as branch circuitry be gutted and rewired to something that is far safer than aluminum . Now a days it is standard practice that is utilized only as services and designated circuits where it is protected from oxidation with an anti oxidization agent ! Below is a blatant example of the unhinged having undue access to firearms
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/tim-steller-nra-s--faced-stance-on-mental-illness/article_f9b9b094-dd90-5602-8527-33a2e18e8a57.html

There are more extreme measures taken to bar folks that had the meagerest amount alcohol in their system from driving . Not that I am in favor of drunk driving .But I think a crazed person who is armed is far more dangerous than somebody's who is a ;little buzzed !!!Yes the drunk drivers laws are designed for public safety not fairness . Not everybody has the same tolerance for alcohol but in the name of public safety very few are willing to gamble with somebody's driving aptitude while intoxicated !!!
If you actually had legitimate viable background checks to keep high capacity weapons out of the hands with folks with low capacity judgement than the assault weapon would be a superfluous farce , The nuts are not locked up like they should be and yes it is unfair to all those who process actual judgement . I rather would have something that is unfair than something that enables the unhinged . Below is something that greatly enables the
unhinged!!
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/tim-steller-nra-s--faced-stance-on-mental-illness/article_f9b9b094-dd90-5602-8527-33a2e18e8a57.html

With all due respect, the title of your story has to do with the NRA comparing the assault weapons ban to racial discrimination. The NRA has a legtimate point.

There is a gun made by Ruger called the Mini-14. It is a semi-automatic, .223 caliber, carbine rifle. There are 4 versions of this weapon. One version is called the Ranch Rifle. It's a basic looking rifle, with a wood stock, etc. It would also be consider ban compliant, i.e. not fitting the category of an "assault weapon." There is another version of the same gun called the Tactical Rifle. It comes configured with a collaspable stock, pistol grip, and flash suppressor. This version is considered an "assault weapon" and subject to the proprosed ban. Both guns are equally lethal - neither is more dangerous than the other. Yet one would be banned while the other would not. Why is that?

It's all about perception. The Tactical Rifle looks more menacing than the Ranch Rifle. That is the point the NRA is trying to make.

Your argument that high capacity magazines should be banned based on need is irrelevant. The government's reasoning for wanting to ban higher capacity magazines is that they make killing easier...it has nothing to do with whether someone actually needs it or not. Human beings need air, water, food, shelter...and that's about it. Based on need...we can argue no one needs a gun of any kind.

But let's entertain your point for just a moment. If I want a gun for home defense, what does it matter if I want a weapon that can hold 10 bullets, or 15 bullets, or 30 bullets? I'm no more or less of a danger to society with a semi-automatic weapon and any of these magazines.

Two cases in point:

Case 1
Remember Columbine? It occurred during the assault weapons ban between 1994 and 2003. Eric used a ban compliant weapon called a High Point 995. He also used ban compliant 10 round magazines. He brought along 13 magazines and was able to fire 96 rounds before killing himself.

Case 2
In the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack. He used 17 magazines, firing off close to 170 rounds (all ten round compliant) before killing himself.

The difference between a single 30 round magazine and (3) 10 round magazines amounts to about 4-6 seconds. A shooter can expel a spent magazine, reload and be ready to shoot again in 2 to 3 seconds (even less for someone very skilled).

Challenging someone's shooting skill or their manhood based on the size of the magazine is common...it sounds cute, and may get a few laughs, but it unfortunately does not address the problem. And the problem is we have too many gun related homocides in the United States.

Let me take my point one step further before closing. Senator Diane Feinstein, as we all know, is an anti-gun advocate and the author of the AWB (assault weapons ban) of 1994. She is once again pushing similar legislation. According to her statistics, since the AWB expired in 2004, assault weapons have been responsible for a total of 385 murders. That comes out to just under 50 murders per year. FBI statistics indicate there were 8583 gun homocides in 2011. That means 0.6% of gun murders in 2011 were from assault weapons. Handguns, on the other hand, accounted for about 90% of the murders. If you really want to single out a particular type of weapon to reduce the murder rate, why on earth would our politicians...that alread

aleady know the statistics, go after the kind of weapon that will not have any appreciable effect on reducing the rate of homocides?

Well you know the NRA is speaking of what they ( and every other rational person) consider flawed judgement based solely on a firearms appearance and not its function.
Martin Luther King once opined the need " not to be judged on the color of their skin, but the content of their character" To me this seems to be what the NRA is trying to get accross. Unfortunately too many in contemporary( one is too many) society are not intellectually honest in their appraisal or they are Intellectually Defective!

Your are never going sucessfully ban anything out right ,but regulation is far different than banning !.Alcohol ls regulated ,since pure alcohol is not legal for consumption ,and you have a system called proof . Certain vehicals are not considered street legal . Most passenger vehicals despite what the power plant is ,are not desined to go over 120 mph .. Yes Germany has the autobon ,but American drivers simply ,could not handle this, and although Switzerlands requires all it's citizen to have an automatic rifle unlike Switzerland the crazies of this nation are not going to be locked up!!

So yes I do strongly I believe in somebody's right to defend themselves and tens rounds ought to get the job done .If eights rounds was enough for Us GIs in WW II welding the M 1 Grand to prevail against the highly trained and ruthless demonic SS in possession of Stermgroveer assault rifles and Mp40 sub machine guns then why would anyone really need more than ten rounds , especially highly against ill trained street thugs who shoot as straight as the leaning tower of pisa ??? In WWII the British utilizing their measly bolt action rifles in something called the mad minute and not the MR Magoo minute were able to prevail against German paratroopers armed with the highly capable Mp40 sub machine guns , And if you brings up the" Seven days in May "scenario whether the citizenry is armed with hunting or assault rifles you are not going win too arguments against artillery pieces tanks and attack aircraft . Yes I often do go back and correct typos .

Hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans own guns and magazines that would be taken from them by the proposed legislation, and banning them would be no more effective than banning booze and drugs. Gun Control is a fantasy born of sentiment, not logic or reason; crimes committed with guns have increased in England, their murder rate also. Fewer English people commit suicide with guns—but the rate is the same; England is now considering a ban on pointed kitchen knives.

“NRA Compares Assault Weapons Ban To Racial Discrimination”
“("banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics.")”
Look again, hd70642; the comparison was related to making a judgment based on appearances; i.e., things like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding stocks, and yes, even the color, make a gun to be judged as “bad,” or “evil,” or “yucky.” If you don’t care for the appearance of them, don’t get any.
 
“... I personally think to limit a magazine capacity to 10 rnds does   not impede somebody;s ability to defend them selves  in any resonable way…”
I don’t think that many owners of hi-cap magazines buy them for self-defense, but if you are implying that the only reason to have such magazines is for self defense, I totally disagree with you.

“If you feel  you need  more than ten rounds…”
“1 you delusional”
Nice ad-hominem; your logic keeps pace with your spelling, grammer, and punctuation. I’ll overlook all but the bad logic if you are not a native speaker of English.

“2 an exceptionaly bad shot and really should not even have a drivers license”
I’m quite a good shot, actually; with iron sights, I can put 18 to 20 out of 20 rounds through a 9 inch pie tin at 600 yards. I developed that skill by putting thousands and thousands of rounds downrange. I don’t like to spend my time at the range reloading, and I can load-up 20- or 30-round magazines at home on rainy nights. What has shooting skill have to do with driving; do you use your car for a weapon? If you’re not a good shot, should you not have a driver’s license? Are you a good shot, hd70642?

“3 If you got that many enemies those extra rounds ain't going to save you”
I don’t have any enemies that I can name, but there are criminals who might harm me, for whatever reason, even if I’m a complete stranger. If a gang of home invasion robbers were kicking in my doors, I’d rather have a gun than wait for a response from 911; silly of me, huh?

“Well last I heard the Declaration did not have a line We hold these truth to be self evident that all guns are
created equal and are endowed by their manufacter wirth certain unalienable rights life
liberty and pursuit of happiness .It does in the consitution well regulated militia”
Besides yourself, who has ever said that this is about the rights of guns? We the People have rights, guns do not have rights. Shoes do not have rights, either, but you have every right to make, buy, own, and use them as you see fit, as long as you do not use them to trample the rights of others.

The definition of "assault weapon" has been more than a bit arbitrary though.
Basically, the same gun with a synthetic and/or folding stock becomes illegal in some states.
Put a wooden stock on it, the gun is legal.
It's the same gun.

Too...banning guns that come with bayonets, which as I understand it IS part of the proposal?
How is banning a gun simply because it comes with a knife on the end of the barrel supposed to prevent mass shootings?
Banning guns with scary black stocks and bayonets IS a purely psychological comfort-measure, it would then seem. It will not prevent mass shootings.

Still the focus is on banning guns.
Where is the outcry for mental health treatment access? We are in dire need of better community mental health services.

<p>Thought I should tell you that I am going to be using two of your lines from now on whenever I talk about guns: "If you've got that many enemies the extra rounds aren't going to save you"....Ha!</P><br />
<p>and "Well last I heard the Declaration did not have a line We hold these truth to be self evident that all guns are<br />
created equal..." </P><br />
<p>Brilliant! And noted for future use! : )</P>