Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The common denominator of mass shootings - Gun Free Zones

No one here can shoot back.

10 comments:

Robocop said...

Truth hurts.

Dustin said...

Most certainly.

MACpistol.com said...

Why is this blog pushing the anti second amendment nra? I thought everyone in the pro gun community knew how nra openly supported the evil 1934 gun ban/registration "law" (I put it in quotes because if it violates the constitution, then it's not law). Nra not only supported the huge 1968 gun ban, they didn't count it as an anti gun vote when daddy bush voted FOR it! Then there's the 1986 ban which finished off the 2nd amendment, which was added to nra's so called "firearm owner PROTECTION" act, and it didn't bother nra at all. Then there's the far reaching and even more evil Lautenberg ban which nra didn't even oppose (it passed under a REPUBLICAN congress!). Then there's the fact that nra refuses to push "Vermont/Alaska" carry ANYWHERE, even in states where it would pass if they only tried (MT, ID, WY, NH, ND and probably even other states). Then there's the nra board members such as Joaquin Jackson who go around proclaiming their support for "assault weapon" bans, magazine bans, and machine gun bans.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/bigmackdaddyboy/nraadmitsin1968thatitsupportsgunban.jpg

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

Dustin said...

macpistol: Just like myself, you're entitled to your own opinion of the NRA. I wouldn't try to force anyone to join it. I personally don't feel any pro gun organization is perfect, but I'm a member of six of them anyways. Why? I feel they all have done much good, way more good than bad. The NRA is a product of the viewpoints of over 4 million members who vote to elect the board members. It's impossible for 4 Million people to be on the same page for every detail, but over the lifetime of the NRA I personally feel that they've done a lot more good than bad.

Like I said though, I'm not trying to convince you to join the NRA, I know that you've got your reasons & I can respect that.

MACpistol.com said...

May I disagree with some things you said with the intent of shedding light on this important issue?

1. nra is NOT a "product of the viewpoints of over 4 million members who vote to elect the board members."
a. NRA makes it VERY hard to find the entire list of board members.
b. It's all but impossible for a regular nra member to become a board member.
c. The election of nra board members is done by only a FEW members with voting privileges.
d. There is effectively NO DISCUSSION OF PRINCIPLES prior to the nra's "elections." It's more of a contest of NAME RECOGNITION.
e. The real decisions at nra are made by one person: the executive vice president.

2. I'm not accusing you of trying to "force" anyone to join nra. I simply noticed your passion for the 2nd amendment and was amazed to see a big "join the nra" banner, when nra has supported so many gun bans and so much gun control.

3. Why didn't you respond to ANY, and I mean ANY, of the historical facts I pointed out concerning nra's systematic support for gun control? Why did you hide behind the statement "everyone's entitled to their opinion," when the items I listed are NOT A MATTER OF OPINION, they are facts. I even cited references to avoid confusion.

Avoiding the items I listed, or making rationalizations about them DOES A MAJOR DISSERVICE TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT. Sadly, there are a LOT of gun owners out there who falsely believe that merely DISCUSSING the nra's record of supporting gun control is a cause of "disunity" and that it "damages the cause of the 2nd amendment." These people avoid facts, and bash people who dare point out nra's LONG record of support for gun control.

Did you at LEAST so much as LOOK at the links I provided?

MACpistol.com said...

I don't want to take attention away from what I just asked you because I sincerely would like a response, but I just noticed that you have no link to Gun Owners of America OR JPFO in your list of second amendment groups. It is GOA that made a stink and helped convince a Senator to stop (for now anyway) the Veterans Disarmament act (which nra strangely supports), and GOA was the first gun lobby to oppose Michael Sullivan as head of the out of control batfe. Amazingly the NRA appears to have no opinion on the most dangerous director of the BATFE in decades (maybe ever).

Dustin said...

macpistol:

I beg to differ on your statement that only a small minority of NRA members can vote. Every single NRA member that keeps up his or her membership for at least 5 years automatically becomes a voting member. You can also instantly jump to voting status if you decide to become a life member. It's just that way to make sure only folks committed to long term membership in the group can vote. It prevents anti-gun folks from joining just for one year so that they can try to influence who the board members are for example.

Board members in turn select the officers that run the NRA. Just like any "democracy" the system is not perfect, but in my humble opinion it is no worse than some of the other gun rights groups that I also support which are basically a dictatorship with absolutely zero voting rights.

I didn't respond to your NRA attacks because it's all been said before, I've read them all before although I did review them again just now as you requested to make sure I did not miss anything, and I agree that mistakes have been made in some of the cases you have mentioned, although not in all. I don't really want to debate them because it's all been debated before & I just will have to agree to disagree. If I expected perfection from the gun rights groups that I'm a member of than I would have to disavow my membership in all gun groups because they've all made mistakes & will continue to make them.

I'm not perfect, and I don't expect perfection out of a gun rights group controlled by either a large group of imperfect people nor those controlled by much smaller groups of 1 to 3 people. I expect improvement over time, and I personally believe that the NRA is improving as quickly as an organization controlled by 4 million gun owning members with diverse opinions on even things as simple as whether or not M-16's should be legal. I think they should, but I'm probably the minority in the group of 70 million plus gun owners in the US, much less the rest of the public. That's why I'm also a member of other groups that agree with me in that area, but even those groups also do things that really make me mad such as inter-fighting & attacks between the groups. I've said it hundreds of times if I've said it once - we can hang together or we will all hang separately.

Life is not about perfection, it's about improvement. We all have a common goal, and I'm doing my best to work towards it as quickly as humanly possible.

Dustin said...

Good point macpistol. I should have listed them under my gun rights sites since they are gun rights sites after all - they're added now. Thanks for the suggestion.

Laughingdog said...

On that note, you might want to consider adding the "Virginia Citizens Defense League" as well (www.vcdl.org). Based on the name, I'm pretty sure the VCDL was the model used to form the AZCDL.

The VCDL is responsible for VA becoming a "shall issue" state back in 1996, and they also get a involved in federal gun issues, since those affect us in VA just as much as changes in the local laws.

Dustin said...

Excellent suggestion Laughing Dog. I do recall hearing that the AZCDL was based after the VCDL. In fact as I recall one or more of the original founders of the AZCDL had been members of the VCDL before they moved here from Virginia. I've added that link as well. Thanks.