Pelican Parts Forums - I don't agree with the NRA

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - I don't agree with the NRA (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1025236-i-dont-agree-nra.html)

I don't agree with the NRA

I have been a member of the NRA for decades.
I am a member of the local outdoor shooting club. I like paper targets anywhere from 7 yards.s to 300 yards.

I like common sense. So what do you feel about my issues with the current legal
stuff with the NRA?

1. You can purchase a hand gun and a long gun every thirty days.
Do the math. In ten years you can have 120 hand guns and 120 rifles.

2. Ten days to wait for delivery of your firearm.
Wait thirty days. You got people mad at bosses, co-workers and ex-wives.
Give them time to settle down.If you really want a firearm then 30 days is
nothing to wait for.
3. High cap mags. Sturm Ruger even said that anyone as an American citizen
doesn't need more than a ten round magazine.
I know that the government goes south on us, they will have high caps.
Tough to argue that one.

4. PTSD. Who is clinically proven to suffer from PTSD should not have a firearm.
Sorry for all of you out there receiving some government dole for your PTSD, but
I spent a year in Vietnam and carried a M16 and M79 everywhere I went and
witnessed **** I don't like seeing again but didn't go to the Va and get
any kind of pay for PTSD.
5. One handgun and one longrifle once a year.

My big concern is that the hundreds of thousands of Baby boomers nearing the "end of life" with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo and safes full of firearms are
not going to be happy with what happens with the stash they have unnecessarily
accumulated.

Two questions:
Why are your opinions whether valid or not directed toward the NRA?
&
Do you think this topic would be better suited for PARF?

In the meantime, the NRA is helping keep the 2nd Amendment from being nulified by those with an agenda against gun ownership of any kind. Are they perfect? No but they are needed to keep our rights protected. Remember that all these fellows pushed for and achieved removing gun ownership from law abiding citizens.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554064770.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

3. High cap mags. Sturm Ruger even said that anyone as an American citizen
doesn't need more than a ten round magazine.

No American needs a fire extinguisher. Fire? Call the fire department. Let the pros handle it.

Along those same lines it should be illegal to own or even manufacture a car that can go more than 75 miles an hour. Any manufacturer that chooses to build such a machine should be held legally accountable for accident, loss of life or property from their use.
[/color=green]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

3. High cap mags. Sturm Ruger even said that anyone as an American citizen
doesn't need more than a ten round magazine.
I know that the government goes south on us, they will have high caps.
Tough to argue that one.

well belt fed is still legal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogar (Post 10411446)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/03/26/new-eu-law-will-require-all-new-cars-to-be-fit-with-anti-speeding-devices/#50360ce04c34

It is happening in Europe, now.

How long before we have it here?

All the more reason to keep a classic on the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

I can legally purchase one morning, noon, and night on the same day. I can legally purchase dozens on the same day. What on earth are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

2. Ten days to wait for delivery of your firearm.
Wait thirty days. You got people mad at bosses, co-workers and ex-wives.
Give them time to settle down.If you really want a firearm then 30 days is
nothing to wait for.

What about folks who already own firearms? Or baseball bats? Or kitchen knives? Should there be a waiting period on axe handles? Ball peen hammers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

One guy in the entire firearms industry, and as soon as he died, Jr. reversed the company's position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

4. PTSD. Who is clinically proven to suffer from PTSD should not have a firearm.
Sorry for all of you out there receiving some government dole for your PTSD, but
I spent a year in Vietnam and carried a M16 and M79 everywhere I went and
witnessed **** I don't like seeing again but didn't go to the Va and get
any kind of pay for PTSD.

To what degree would they have to be suffering to be disqualified?

My father in law served in WWII. He literally walked across North Africa chasing Rommel's army. Then then crossed the Mediterranean into Sicily and his unit fought at Anzio.

For over 30 years after he got home he would periodically wake up in the middle of the night screaming and flailing. Back then, it was "shell shocked" rather than "PTSD". Many of his generation who served suffered from it.

My own dad served in Korea. Same thing, but not as bad as my father in law had it. Us kids could hear him, and then hear my mom trying to calm him down. He died at 50 years old and never did get over it.

Men of their generation, in spite of that, owned firearms and never harmed a soul. Would never consider it. Millions of men of that generation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

5. One handgun and one longrifle once a year.

What would this accomplish? I'm hard pressed to come up with anything at all that this would accomplish towards a reduction in gun violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapewta (Post 10411317)

My big concern is that the hundreds of thousands of Baby boomers nearing the "end of life" with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo and safes full of firearms are
not going to be happy with what happens with the stash they have unnecessarily
accumulated.

In most cases, these collections are merely passed on to their heirs. If their heirs don't want them, they get sold at an estate sale or something.

And what do you mean "unnecessarily accumulated"?

Boy, you know, you started out saying "I like common sense" and then very convincingly demonstrated otherwise. Nothing you posted makes any sense whatsoever.

Do I really need as many Porsches as I have?
Do I really need as many bicycles?
Do I really need as many watches?
None of those are protected by the Constitution, but my gun collection is, and I will be damned if I'm going to let someone tell me what and how much of anything I can buy and own.

Under your rules, would my chainsaw bayonet be confiscated?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554073078.jpg

Millions and millions of law abiding gun owners in the US never cause anyone harm with their firearms.

A very small number of criminals use firearms to commit crimes and some people claim that's a justification to take my rights away. Strangely, many of the people who claim these things to the largest audiences are themselves protected by men with guns.

I think that you need to lose your right to free speech, first. You have no right to advocate taking away my rights.

Or you just get one gun that does everything...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554074579.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtEgerer (Post 10411497)

Under your rules, would my chainsaw bayonet be confiscated?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554073078.jpg

If you truly own that, you are my new hero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 10411469)

I can legally purchase one morning, noon, and night on the same day. I can legally purchase dozens on the same day. What on earth are you talking about?

What about folks who already own firearms? Or baseball bats? Or kitchen knives? Should there be a waiting period on axe handles? Ball peen hammers?

One guy in the entire firearms industry, and as soon as he died, Jr. reversed the company's position.

To what degree would they have to be suffering to be disqualified?

My father in law served in WWII. He literally walked across North Africa chasing Rommel's army. Then then crossed the Mediterranean into Sicily and his unit fought at Anzio.

For over 30 years after he got home he would periodically wake up in the middle of the night screaming and flailing. Back then, it was "shell shocked" rather than "PTSD". Many of his generation who served suffered from it.

My own dad served in Korea. Same thing, but not as bad as my father in law had it. Us kids could hear him, and then hear my mom trying to calm him down. He died at 50 years old and never did get over it.

Men of their generation, in spite of that, owned firearms and never harmed a soul. Would never consider it. Millions of men of that generation.

What would this accomplish? I'm hard pressed to come up with anything at all that this would accomplish towards a reduction in gun violence.

In most cases, these collections are merely passed on to their heirs. If their heirs don't want them, they get sold at an estate sale or something.

And what do you mean "unnecessarily accumulated"?

Boy, you know, you started out saying "I like common sense" and then very convincingly demonstrated otherwise. Nothing you posted makes any sense whatsoever.

I agree 100% with Jeff. The original post is just nucking futz.

Yep...Rapewta wants it harder to acquire a firearm legally. Brilliant. Apparently people that would commit murder (also against the law), will abide by legal means to acquire a firearm. Makes perfect sense.

Not!

I don't agree with the NRA either, however for different reasons. What Rapewta is advocating is gross infringement and would not have any impact on unlawful acquisition of firearms or their use by criminals.

The NRA has gone from being the bastions of protecting the 2nd amendment, to brokering deals and compromise for political gain. Other organizations like GOA, GOC, and SAF seem more appealing to me.

I don't agree with the original post.

If one has a fundamental disagreement with someone or some organization why would they continue to be joined to them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando (Post 10411563)

The NRA has gone from being the bastions of protecting the 2nd amendment, to brokering deals and compromise for political gain.

Yeah! After all, no other company or special interest has poured money into certain politicians to gain influence, access, or just ensure that the winning candidate is favorable to them!:rolleyes:
All of a sudden, no one wanted to donate to the Clinton Foundation after her 2016 loss (a 15 year low. But hey, lets not look at the Democrats or the liberals.

Now lets get back to the threat from those big bad high cap guns!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554078665.jpg

What is a "Semiautomatic Assault Handgun" ?

Also, anyone, please name even one time an Assault Rifle was used in a civilian mass shooting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 10411695)

What is a "Semiautomatic Assault Handgun" ?

Also, anyone, please name even one time an Assault Rifle was used in a civilian mass shooting.

A An Uzi on semiauto.

B Christchurch NZ two weeks ago 50 dead.