Images of NRA, Congressional Republicans on the decline

Well the biggest problem I have with people defending large clips (which potentially make sense such as in a .22 pistol such as the Kel-Tec PMR-30 where you are counting on hitting more often with smaller bullets to stop the attacker), is that people often say "Well they don't really help mass shooters kill more people because they can reload really fast anyway" then turn around and say "A person defending their home with a high capacity clip can shoot more bad guys without needing to reload."

Quote from Xygonn : ...people often say "Well they don't really help mass shooters kill more people because they can reload really fast anyway" then turn around and say "A person defending their home with a high capacity clip can shoot more bad guys without needing to reload."

As another member pointed out in another thread, a mass shooter will be prepared for whatever they have planned with extra mags readily available. When your home is invaded one had seconds to wake up, grab a weapon, and defend one's self and family. Preparation is the key difference I see between those two statements, not contradiction.

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : I'm just curious, why do you own a gun?

Because unilateral disarming is kinda stupid.

Because under certain circumstances having a gun doses improve your chance of surviving a killer's attack.

Quote from BigBananaMess : As another member pointed out in another thread, a mass shooter will be prepared for whatever they have planned with extra mags readily available. When your home is invaded one had seconds to wake up, grab a weapon, and defend one's self and family. Preparation is the key difference I see between those two statements, not contradiction.

So if you want thirty bullets, keep your gun ready with two extra magazines. Make or buy a bandoleer for your magazines. You have just as much time to prep your defense as they have to prep their attack.

As many have pointed out, standard 10 rounds mags are less likely to jam.

Quote from TRNT : Because unilateral disarming is kinda stupid. Because under certain circumstances having a gun doses improve your chance of surviving a killer's attack.

The criminals will never disarm. Law abiding citizens will always be disarming unilaterally.

Let's review some of the incorrect information in here. Since I'm actually curious to know how you will defend yourself I will, this time, go through the extra effort to cut up your quote rather than in line marking since you can't be bothered to put the extra effort into your own replies.

Quote from TRNT : Kinda....but I think the NRA engages in passive/aggressive type behavior but adding excerpts to laws or support laws that are useless and enforceable. And when those laws are either not enforced or prove to be ineffective, they use the data to show that additional laws are not needed.

The NRA likely does try to put things in where they can to protect their interests. In this regard they are the same as just about any other lobbying group.

Quote : Example: they are for a law that says it is illegal for a private seller to a "known" (wink wink) felon. Then when that crappy law does not work they will then use that fact and resist meaningful laws that would have a chance of working, laws such as requiring BGCs for all sales.

Again you fixate on this and use the disingenuous "wink wink". You act as if this is a common happening (it's not) and paint all who might actually engage in private transactions as if they are uncaring about the potential to sell to felons. This practice isn't even legal in many states. What you have, repeatedly, failed to understand (perhaps you refuse to consider the points made by others) is that closing this "loophole" many not seriously reduce the problem you are worried about but will increase the number of people who, though otherwise law abiding, become "criminals" because they are now illegally passing a gun on to a family member for example. Would you actually deny that people without criminal records have been prosecuted for accidentally running afoul of various gun laws? What do you say to someone who is now being declared a felon simply because of an honest mistake or random happenstance related to some random gun law violation?

Quote : This is a gut-feeling of mi the mostly until now un-engaged middle of the road people do not quite believe that the CT shooter guy could have walked into a flea mark and bought till the weapons that he used in his massacre. Most people heat that but don't quite believe it and it does not quite sick in because of all the publicity and half truths by the NRA and other gun enthusiasts.

Your gut is not well qualified. Let's make this clear. The CT shooter almost certainly could not walk into any flea market and buy a gun. First, it would have been illegal for several reasons. 1. He is under age for a pistol 2. He is in a state where this is not legal and if he were in another state it would be illegal since the buyer was out of state. Contrary to what you THINK and the false premiss you are putting forth, private gun sellers DO check IDs when they don't know the person. They can't verify the lack of a felony but they can make sure the buyer is from in state and he is old enough to buy (as far as I know his age is the only thing that would have stopped him from buying in CT, I haven't seen anything saying his mental status put him on a no-by list). Thus you have made a false argument. Funny that you speak of NRA half truths but you are happy to spin your own.

Quote : But perhaps the time is now right/ripe for the people in the middle to finally truly understand and for this unbelievable fact to sink that the CT killer could have walked in a flea market and get those weapons and when that happens restrictions on gun buy and sale will follow no matter how mu ch NRA and other gun enthusiasts would then whine and moan.

Well he couldn't have but that doesn't stop you from claiming it does it. You have been told repeatedly this is simply a false argument. You have been shown the facts and stats that support this as a red herring yet you are still trying to fry that fish. There is lots of whining and moaning around here. You seem to do a lot of it (especially when I put my replies in line ).

Quote from Xygonn : The criminals will never disarm. Law abiding citizens will always be disarming unilaterally.

I hear time and again that many criminals get their guns by stealing them from law abiding citizens.

Hmm.....

Quote from Xygonn : So if you want thirty bullets, keep your gun ready with two extra magazines. Make or buy a bandoleer for your magazines. You have just as much time to prep your defense as they have to prep their attack. As many have pointed out, standard 10 rounds mags are less likely to jam.

On one hand I tend to agree with you. Personally, if I can't get the job done with six or eight rounds I'll accept what is in store for me.

OTOH, I'm not willing to apply that standard to a frightened, cornered single mom with a pistol in one hand and a phone in the other. I favor giving her every advantage possible to keep herself and her family safe. I wouldn't want her holding a cartoonish 30 round pistol mag or 100 round drum due to jamming issues, but a double stack mag holding 12 to 17 rounds is very reliable and what many handguns are designed to hold.

Quote from Xygonn : Well the biggest problem I have with people defending large clips (which potentially make sense such as in a .22 pistol such as the Kel-Tec PMR-30 where you are counting on hitting more often with smaller bullets to stop the attacker), is that people often say "Well they don't really help mass shooters kill more people because they can reload really fast anyway" then turn around and say "A person defending their home with a high capacity clip can shoot more bad guys without needing to reload."

A mass shooter picks the time and place and can plan ahead thus bringing the ammo they want. A defensive shooter is stuck in the situation with what they have on hand and nothing else. I have, several times now, quoted Larry Correia, a self defense instructor, on this subject. He noted this and also said, there has never been a person who came out of one of these situations saying, "I wish I didn't have so much ammunition".

Essentially, by saying what you have said, you have admitted you don't see the difference between someone who plans to be in a situation and someone who gets stuck in it when they didn't expect it.

Quote from TRNT : Do we know how many members they lost in recent days? NRA put their lifetime membership on sale, from $1000 down to $300.

They do this sale at least a couple times per year. It's nothing new.

we should declare war on the nra, the same way we've declared war on al qaeda.

Quote from Xygonn : As many have pointed out, standard 10 rounds mags are less likely to jam.

That depends on the gun. The standard pistol magazines, say 12-17 rounds are typically very reliable. The extended 30s often aren't. For things like the AR-15, the 20-30 round magazines are often reliable but the 75+ aren't.

Quote from TRNT : Do we know how many members they lost in recent days? NRA put their lifetime membership on sale, from $1000 down to $300. But the bottom line is this: does anyone here thing the NRA reaction (including Lapierr's news conf) is helping their PR? When recently this questions was asked, a poster claimed it was a loaded question but in reality it is a very straightforward question.

do you know how little the nra relies on it's members for funding, or listens to their wishes?

Quote from TRNT : I hear time and again that many criminals get their guns by stealing them from law abiding citizens. Hmm.....

Then you aren't listening very well. I know this has been pointed out to you so claiming the above is a dishonest argument on your part. You have been told, repeatedly, the common means for guns to enter the illegal market is straw purchases and corrupt FFLs, not gun thefts.

Quote from onscreen : Again you fixate on this and use the disingenuous "wink wink". You act as if this is a common happening (it's not) and paint all who might actually engage in private transactions as if they are uncaring about the potential to sell to felons. This practice isn't even legal in many states. What you have, repeatedly, failed to understand (perhaps you refuse to consider the points made by others) is that closing this "loophole" many not seriously reduce the problem you are worried about but will increase the number of people who, though otherwise law abiding, become "criminals" because they are now illegally passing a gun on to a family member for example. Would you actually deny that people without criminal records have been prosecuted for accidentally running afoul of various gun laws? What do you say to someone who is now being declared a felon simply because of an honest mistake or random happenstance related to some random gun law violation?

On one hand you seem to take credit for many states that have outlawed this practice but then resist stopping it in other states by claiming that it might not help things. Hmm...

Since borders between states are wide open, no law that is enforced in one state will be effective even in that one state.

Also, saying this will not be effective undermines your boasting that many states already have this law and IMO also undermines the requirement that FFLs must do BGCs.

Lastly IMO we are beyond showing things and getting data.....we have done this the NRA way for years and we are in trouble. Time to do what logic says should work and most people want. No time to demand comprehensive studies where good data are drowned by crappy data.

Quote from onscreen : Your gut is not well qualified. Let's make this clear. The CT shooter almost certainly could not walk into any flea market and buy a gun. First, it would have been illegal for several reasons. 1. He is under age for a pistol 2. He is in a state where this is not legal and if he were in another state it would be illegal since the buyer was out of state. Contrary to what you THINK and the false premiss you are putting forth, private gun sellers DO check IDs when they don't know the person. They can't verify the lack of a felony but they can make sure the buyer is from in state and he is old enough to buy (as far as I know his age is the only thing that would have stopped him from buying in CT, I haven't seen anything saying his mental status put him on a no-by list). Thus you have made a false argument. Funny that you speak of NRA half truths but you are happy to spin your own.

1. The CT shooter could have been a few years older. Same result.

2. He happened to be in a state where this is not legal (no BGCs). But he also could have been in a state where this is legal. And that is the point: same result.

3. The law SAYS selling to out of staters is illegal but that law has no teeth. For example, is the seller required to check the ID? Even if yes, is he supposed to document this or can he simply later on merely claim that he checked the ID and the ID was ok? See why I do "wink wink"?