In the discussion thread: Can anyone reccomend a good and effective gun advocacy group other than the NRA? [View all]
Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #8)
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:32 PM
spin (17,076 posts)
23. ProgressiveProfessor is giving you some good advice ...
The NRA does a lot of good for those who enjoy shooting sports. They provide excellent safety training instruction for civilians and law enforcement and offer many other worthwhile programs for those whose hobby is shooting.
The organization is supposedly a "one issue" group and it does actually support pro-gun Democrats and give such politicians a high rating. Unfortunately the political wing known as the NRA-ILA does have a nasty tendency to demonize many liberals unfairly. Obama is one example as he has actually been pro-gun during his first term and has even received an 'F' rating from the Brady Campaign. Therefore I refuse to donate to the NRA-ILA and throw their propaganda unopened into the trash can.
There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation but only 4.3 million belong to the NRA. I feel that the reason for this is that the NRA-ILA is largely unpopular with most gun owners. I've talked to many NRA members who dropped their membership as they grew tired of the constant donation requests in their mail. It's a common misconception that gun owners are stupid rednecks who looked like they stepped out of the 1972 movie Deliverance. Many, if not most, are well educated and professional individuals who just happen to enjoy the shooting sports or just own firearms for self defense or occasional hunting.
I also wish that there was actually a truly liberal organization that supported gun rights and the Second Amendment. So far I haven't found one but I will admit that I gave up on the effort years ago.
If the NRA does actually endorse Romney I plan to cancel my membership. I came damn close when it endorsed McCain.
I should add that I don't consider the Hughes amendment to be "crazy."
Firearm Owners Protection Act
I will agree that limiting the ownership of fully automatic firearms to those produced prior to May 19, 1968 has caused the cost of buying such weapons to skyrocket as the supply is drying up. Such weapons are a lot of fun to shoot and I have enjoyed the experience when offered the opportunity. I really see little use for a fully automatic firearm with the exception of the amusement experienced by shooting one. I can shoot far more accurately with a semi-auto firearm and still achieve a rapid rate of fire. Fully automatic weapons might be somewhat useful in warfare but serve little purpose for hunting, target shooting or self defense unless we have a zombie apocalypse which is highly unlikely.
Perhaps we could allow a limited number of such weapons made after 1968 to enter the market. That might cause the price to fall to a more reasonable level but to be honest I fail to see much value in doing so.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
ProgressiveProfessor is giving you some good advice ...
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#5|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#12|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#22|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#25|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Jul 2012||#14|
Please login to view edit histories.