The important thing right now is that we not offend the nation's gun apologists

[Orrex]

During this perpetual national crisis, it is imperative that you avoid mistakes in describing the guns used in these daily massacres, because such mistakes might offend the brave souls who hold guns sacrosanct. At the very least, make certain that you know the precise barrel length, muzzle velocity, clip size, caliber, weight and place of manufacture of any gun you discuss, because one small error along these lines is sufficient to invalidate your entire position.

For instance, many otherwise solid arguments for sensible gun control have been wholly derailed by carelessly referring to a clip as a magazine, or vice versa. Similarly, a mistake in describing a firearm's rifling pitch is a clear indication that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation about our national epidemic of gun violence.

Ultimately, your best bet is simply to stand aside and let the passionate gun aficionados set the terms and parameters of the entire discussion. Thank them for their wisdom when they dismiss any proposed regulations as "meaningless feel-good legislation." Recognize that when they call you a "gun grabber," they mean it as a term of respect. Understand that their desire to launch 20 lethal metal projectiles per second supersedes your petty concerns about personal safety and the ongoing destruction of the national consciousness.

These are indeed sad and troubling times, but let us not forget that guns and their advocates are the real victims here.

[LonePirate]

1. Sarcasm noted but screw them and the NRA

It's time they begin shouldering the blame for the gun deaths and injuries in this country as they perpetually stand in the way of those of us who actually care about our fellow Americans.

[Squinch]

2. Most of our resident "responsible gun owners" seem clearly to feel as if they are the real victims

of these slaughters, because their hobby is being threatened.

I've posted this before, and I'll repost it here. It's all the stupid arguments the gun nuts pull out of their asses every time there is a massacre (which now means daily.) Maybe if we just list their gripes, they'll go away and let the grown-ups have a real conversation about this.

So here are all of the arguments the "responsible gun owners" will make:

"You are saying that all gun owners are murderers. That hurts my feelings."

"What about the millions who use guns to get their food? Huh? What about those millions? You want them to starve?"

"You might as well give up right now, because you are too insignificant to have an impact on gun laws."

"We need to completely reform the mental health system before we do anything about guns."

"It's not a clip, it's a magazine. Discussion closed."

"It's not a magazine, it's a clip. Discussion closed."

"Chicago has tough gun laws, and they have a lot of gun deaths, so tough gun laws won't work"

"All those gun statistics are irrelevant because they include/don't include suicides."

"All you people who don't like to see guys with semi automatic guns in JC Penney are just hysterical and don't get it. It's no big deal."

"If you take guns out of the hands of law abiding people, the only people who will be left with guns are the criminals."

"A guy in Podunk stopped a crime with his gun. See? Guns work!"

"You don't know what a Myerson Double Triple Ammo Latch is, therefore you have no right to be having a discussion about guns"

And thanks to zappaman for adding: "Cars kill more people per year. Should we ban cars?"

And thanks to Major Hogwash for adding: ""I've never killed anybody, but I fantasize about someone breaking into my house every night."

[Doctor_J]

3. Good job Squinch. I think you need two more though

"Statistically, gun deaths have decreased dramatically"

"If he hadn't had a gun, he could have used a knife or a baseball bat"

[Squinch]

4. Thank you! I'll add them. I'm sure I'll have occasion to post the list again soon.

[Major Nikon]

102. Guns don't kill people!

We just need more gun nuts to protect us from the gun nuts!

[Squinch]

112. Sadly, it seems like we are getting more every day.

I have to admit, though I would never buy a gun to assuage the fear, I now fear running into these imbeciles in my daily life. I imagine that for some people, that would be the signal to go out and get a gun of their own. A self-fulfilling spiral.

[yardwork]

9. My favorite is the "If he didn't have a gun he would have used a..." argument.

I remember somebody once saying to me that gun control would lead to people being forced to cut their salad tomatoes with spoons.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. Yes...yes they would use something else.

Not all the time. I live in Canada with stricter gun controls. Criminals may resort to a knife instead. But guess what? People will recover from a stab wound, even multiple stab wounds, much more than the damage a gun can do.

But also, if someone is angry enough to kill in the moment, if he has to either a. try and find a gun somewhere in a land with less guns available, or b. if he has to actually use the messy up close method of a knife, he may in the meantime calm down enough to stop himself.

But even IF this person still wants to kill someone, and doesn't have a gun so he uses "something else", it is always much less dangerous and mortally lethal than a firearm.

[yardwork]

26. I get that, and you get that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

31. I know, I was elaborating.

[yardwork]

32. .

[MillennialDem]

77. Guns are easier to use, but don't underestimate stab wounds. A large enough knife

Can do more damage than any gun, even a .50 Won't literally take your head or leg off in one hit. A sharp and large enough knife can.

of course, a gun is easier to use as i said for a multitude of reasons.

[LiberalLovinLug]

78. Of course both are horrible ways to die

And of course there are all kinds of moving variables. Like you mentioned. If it is a butcher knife up close in the chest vs. a .50 from a distance where no vital organs are hit. But on balance, overall, a gunshot is much more deadly. Here is a study done comparing the two and the fatality rates:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/

The study, published online ahead of print in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, examined 4,122 patients taken to eight Level I and Level II adult trauma centers in Philadelphia between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. Of these, 2,961 were transported by EMS and 1,161 by the police. The overall mortality rate was 27.4 percent. Just over three quarters (77.9 percent) of the victims suffered gunshot wounds, and just under a quarter (22.1 percent) suffered stab wounds. The majority of patients in both groups (84.1 percent) had signs of life on delivery to the hospital. A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds.

But beyond even that, it is much harder for someone, both physically, and emotionally, to go through with the up close and personal and bloody act of sticking a knife in another human compared to pointing a gun at someone from distance, where the victim doesn't even have to be aware of their impending doom, and pulling a trigger.

[MillennialDem]

79. Yes I said as much - but again there are so many different calibers of gun (in addition to rifle vs

handgun vs shotgun, grains, hollowpoint vs full metal jacket, etc) and different types of knives - a swiss army knife, a pair of scissors, a screwdriver, a kitchen knife, or a giant hunting knife or sword. Some may be relatively or very dull.

Also I suspect many stab wounds are relatively intentionally non-fatal (stabs in the hands/arms and legs/feet - I would suspect this occurs far more often than intentional shots to the legs/feet and hands/arms). A kid stabbed another kid at my school through the hand with a pencil. I bet this happens far more often than someone shooting someone else through the hand on purpose.

And again, when you count things like screwdrivers and scissors and pencils as stab wounds, that also matters.

If you just compared sharp KNIVES vs guns then it would get closer to similar fatality rates.

And again, a 50 bmg isn't going to take your head off in one shot. A sword or a 12" knife will. That's the only thing we know of that is always fatal.

People survive gun shots and stabs to the brains, hearts, spine, etc (even with large calibers and/or large blades). Often not for the best, but you know... they do survive sometimes. But they don't survive losing their head.

But yes it is of course much harder physically and emotionally to stab someone to death than to shoot them to death.

Just don't think knife wounds are nothing and guns are instant death rays (people often hold those two views).

[lunatica]

100. You can't kill a dozen people at a time with a knife n/t.

[MillennialDem]

111. It's easier to kill faster with a gun, yes. But a single stab wound can, in some cases be far

worse than a dozen bullet holes.

[Fast Walker 52]

15. "If you take guns out of the hands of law abiding people,

the only people who will be left with guns are the criminals."

I get that argument on Facebook every FUCKING time.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. I've lost count how many times I've seen it today.

If I bother to respond at all, it's with, "so you're saying we shouldn't have laws against anything at all since people who break them are criminals."

[Fast Walker 52]

43. exactly-- it's such a non-sensical argument, but they won't give it up

[EX500rider]

91. "it's such a non-sensical argument"

Why "non-sensical"? It's certainly the case in some countries with very strict firearms regulations yet have much higher homicide rates then the US like Mexico and Jamaica.

US homicide rate 3.8 per 100,00
Mexico: 21.5 per 100,000
Jamaica: 39.3 per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Fast Walker 52]

92. I don't follow your argument

Are you claiming that non-criminal gun ownership in the US is why we have lower overall homicide rates than two countries with massive criminality problems?

[EX500rider]

93. I am saying it's obvious in those 2 countries taking away guns..

....left them all in the hands of criminals who now do as they please.

[Fast Walker 52]

94. but that's ignoring many other factors, so you don't really know what's causing the high deaths

certainly there are countries with strong gun control laws and very few gun deaths.

[EX500rider]

95. Which makes the opposite argument also suspect...

...that Japan & some Euro countries have a low murder rate due to strict gun laws and not other factors.

[Fast Walker 52]

96. sure... and more studies would be useful

too bad the US Gov won't fund such studies...

[Photographer]

16. Nice collection!

[Chan790]

21. Maybe it's time to start drafting stock rebuttals to their arguments.

"You are saying that all gun owners are murderers. That hurts my feelings."
You know what else is going to hurt your feelings? Meaningful gun-control legislation that your intransigence will keep you from having constructive input on.

"What about the millions who use guns to get their food? Huh? What about those millions? You want them to starve?"
If they're too stupid to be able to hunt with a low-capacity, medium-caliber long-gun like a bolt-action .30-06 then I think it's probably better for everybody that they procure their meat at the butcher's counter of their local supermarket. Also, millions? It's like 100,000 actual subsistence hunters at the most and probably 1/10 of that.

"You might as well give up right now, because you are too insignificant to have an impact on gun laws."
It would only take about 25,000 of us to take over the NRA; do you want to wager that I can't find 25,000 other people too insignificant to have an impact?

"We need to completely reform the mental health system before we do anything about guns."
You're right. We need to fix the mental health system that Ronald Reagan broke. Of course, that has nothing to do with gun control as mentally-ill people are more likely to be the victims of violence, with or without a gun, than the perpetrators.

"It's not a clip, it's a magazine. Discussion closed."
Minutia isn't rebuttal but I get why you'd want to shut down discussion on your indefensible RKBA position.

"It's not a magazine, it's a clip. Discussion closed."
Minutia isn't rebuttal but I get why you'd want to shut down discussion on your indefensible RKBA position.

"Chicago has tough gun laws, and they have a lot of gun deaths, so tough gun laws won't work"
All that tells us is that islands of gun-control don't work because people will bring in guns from less-strict jurisdictions. It's not a disproof of gun control; it's evidence of the need for a uniform national standard on gun-control.

"All those gun statistics are irrelevant because they include/don't include suicides."
I didn't realize that people who committed suicide with a gun were less dead than victims of gun violence.

"All you people who don't like to see guys with semi automatic guns in JC Penney are just hysterical and don't get it. It's no big deal."
I'd say it's up to the owner of an establishment then whether guns are permitted on their premises...we're not the ones that howl when a retailer permits guns. We just don't shop there. You're the ones that throw temper tantrums when retailers and restaurants exercise their legal rights to bar firearms from the premises. I'd say it's more of a big deal for you.

"If you take guns out of the hands of law abiding people, the only people who will be left with guns are the criminals."
Japan disproves this. Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens at the same time punishments for illegal gun-possession were raised resulted in the Yakuza not being able to turn their guns in fast enough to avoid criminal prosecution. Today, gun-related crime in Japan is unheard of.

"A guy in Podunk stopped a crime with his gun. See? Guns work!"
A guy in rural CT also stopped a home invasion with a calcified bull penis. I'm not seeing anybody argue for the unfettered right to carry around a bull-cock for the purpose of self-defense. The Podunk homeowner is 3x more likely to be the victim of his own gun by an assailant than to use it successfully to stop such an attack. So, it's not about the guy in Podunk that stopped the home-invasion, it's about the previous statistical three guys that got shot in the face with their own gun.

"You don't know what a Myerson Double Triple Ammo Latch is, therefore you have no right to be having a discussion about guns"
You don't know the respective gun-control laws of all six New England states, therefore you have no right to be having a discussion about gun control.

"Cars kill more people per year. Should we ban cars?"
Cars and car-operation are far more regulated than firearms. If you agree to subject firearms to the same degree of registration, licensure, insurance, testing, and the right of the state to revoke your right to operate a piece of dangerous machinery for any reason it deems fit--as cars and driving are subjected to...we'll compromise to that right now and want for nothing else.

"I've never killed anybody, but I fantasize about someone breaking into my house every night."
I've never had a threesome with two ex-girlfriends, but every night I fantasize about that. Notably though, the odds of me having that threeway are a lot better than yours of being the victim of a home invasion. You're also more likely be be prematurely killed in your own bed by nature than an intruder. A gun isn't going to protect you from a tornado or falling limb or a mosquito.

"Statistically, gun deaths have decreased dramatically"
Have we reached zero? No, well then...there's room for improvement. One preventable gun death is one too many.

"If he hadn't had a gun, he could have used a knife or a baseball bat"
An armed assailant with a knife or a baseball bat is much easier to subdue than one with a firearm. You can bum-rush an assailant with a melee weapon with a high likelihood of no rusher suffering a serious, let alone fatal, injury. The same cannot be said to be true of a firearm. There's a reason why riflemen completely dominated the tactically-and-martially-superior samurai.

Any more I can draft stock responses to?

[Squinch]

22. These are awesome!

The ones I find most interesting:

1.that it would take only 25000 to take over the NRA. I just saw this idea yesterday for the first time, and I think it's a really good one. And now that you have put a number to it, it seems very do-able.

2. The calcified bull penis. Because who can win any argument against calcified bull penis?


ETA: I also think the one about people who hunt their food is complete bullshit. The numbers of people who do that are so minute as to not enter into the discussion. It's like when DU went through their phase where the argument "but we need to put gun handling into the school curriculum because kids find guns in the bushes and dumpsters all the time" was used a lot.

[randys1]

29. You are my new favorite poster. BRILLIANT!

[etherealtruth]

39. you are awesome!!!!!!!

[Squinch]

74. Chan, seriously, the more I think about it, the more I think your idea to get non-gun people to

join the NRA is genius.

I would like to strongly encourage you to do an OP about it. It's a great idea, and I think it could have an effect.

[smirkymonkey]

88. +1000

[madinmaryland]

98. You just won the internets, Chan!!

[Photographer]

104. It's a shame we can't recmmend posts in a thread. +100

[Hoyt]

108. Excellent.

[etherealtruth]

40. You and Chan are absolutely , positively awesome!!!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Then there's the veiled threats

to launch a guerrilla war on the American government and people, should they dare to attempt any meaningful gun control. This was happening on a thread I was posting in last night. apparently, our military won't fire on armed wackos shooting at them, because they're RW and would sympathize.

So we'd have some sort of glorious RW military coup, and our gun rights will be safe forever. Or something.

I'm also seeing the claim that all law enforcement needs to be completely disarmed before we can start regulating civilian firearms.

And the suggestion that the poster advocating gun control be the one to personally go door to door, confiscating people's firearms.

These are all things I've been seeing here on DU over the past 24 hours.

[Squinch]

51. Freaking trolls who crawl out of the woodwork to defend the idea that their hobby is worth

a weekly massacre. The selfishness of these people is astonishing.

[smirkymonkey]

89. The selfishness is astonishing!

Never, ever any concern for the victims. Only concern for their own stupid fetish that boils down to nothing more that a pathetic, childish hobby.

[Paladin]

68. Those are things I've been seeing on DU for damn near 15 years. (nt)

[Photographer]

107. I've been getting that from a couple of posters as well

They honestly believe that if a law were passed that police would refuse to follow the law or there would be some sort of Red Dawn scenario...

WOLVERINES!!!!

[branford]

114. Sheriffs in CO, NY and other localities have already refused to enforce certain state gun laws.

Active and official law enforcement opposition is more than theory.

[smirkymonkey]

47. +1000

[Paladin]

65. "5000 rounds of ammo ain't so much."

"Hell, I always keep a minimum of 5000 rounds on hand for each of my 10 Absolutely Not An Assault rifles. And my buds at the gun range do the same. And we're perfectly normal. So don't go calling 5000 rounds a lot of ammo. Not if you know what's good for you."


Yet another favorite of the Gun Enthusiasts, in circumstances such as these.

[Squinch]

69. I will be sure to add it the next time we need to post it. Because sadly, we know we will.

[Dem2]

84. Thank you

I've heard all of those and more. It's a sickness.

[cpwm17]

5. Selfishness is the source of all evil in this world.

Selfish asses care more about their stupid guns than the rights of innocent Americans not to be murdered.

How can anybody support an activity that causes so much harm to the innocent? – pure selfishness.

[Initech]

6. The important thing is that no guns were harmed yesterday.

[randys1]

30. Brilliantly funny...I am stealing

[demmiblue]

7. Spot on!

I swear, they are like scavenging cockroaches whenever any gun violence occurs.

Creepy people, indeed.

[yardwork]

8. Brilliant. Love it.

[MoonRiver]

10. Plus, they could shoot you!

[lark]

11. Love your sarcasm

I feel as fed up with these apologists as you appear to be.

[allan01]

12. australia had one to many of these and said no more of this

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Even if you get the gun details right they still go ballistic.

[valerief]

14. I have the gungeon trashed and a lot of the gungeoneers on Ignore already. nt

[SwankyXomb]

20. Same here

I wonder just how far they would have to go before EarlG and Skinner get rid of them.

[Eleanors38]

83. Go ahead. Please do. Play your strong suit:

Relatively small numbers in elite positions on some web sites, MSM, in a few big cities, in the DNC.

I have heard, don't know if it's true, but GD is a battle won.

Battles are easily won on the 'tubes.

Go for it.

[sanatanadharma]

17. Gun fetishists are morally sick

Gun violence is bullshit. I want to cripple gun manufacturers. They are responsible for world-wide carnage. Daesh kills with guns made by 'respectable ' corporate people.

We need enforced laws that charge legal gun owners each and every time his/er gun is lost, stolen, misused, involved in a crime, etc.
Bad guys get guns from good guys.

The level of gun violence in the country indicts the moral and ethical compass of everyone, who looking at the status-quo of America's gun-insanity and collateral damage, says this is better than his/er losing a precious toy designed solely for killing other souls.

At what level, at what number of deaths in America will the ammosexuals finally stop deifying the gun over human life.

[steve2470]

18. This is a free society, so we have to accept the fact that X number of people will be slaughtered...

per week in mass shootings. After all, there's nothing you can do about this without compromising rights.

in case I need it.


NRA and 2nd Amendment rights boosters, YOU come up with the correct solution to this horrible situation! I'm tired of EVERY
policy proposal countered with some reason why it can't be done or won't work. SOMETHING can be done. I would never advocate
a total confiscation of weapons (because it won't happen, let's be realistic), but mandatory registration of ALL weapons changing hands and mandatory background checks is a viable option IMHO. Yea yea, I know people will still evade that, but at least SOMETHING is being tried.

Also, my opinion (which you're free to violently disagree with) is that if you use a firearm in the commission of ANY crime, you get life in prison without possibility of parole. Sorry, but you fuck up with a firearm, you deserve to sit in prison forever. KEEP YOUR GODDAMN WEAPON AT HOME FOR SELF-DEFENSE. If you carry concealed, keep it in the goddamn holster unless you're legally authorized to take it out (whatever those laws are).

So fucking sick of my country going insane!!!! It was NEVER like this in the past, at least not more than maybe once or twice a year at the very most.

[Squinch]

23. I was also very surprised to discover that the interpretation of the 2A was not

solidified until recently.

There was, historically, a heavy leaning in the interpretation that said that the amendment referred only to the use of guns in defense of the state.

It was only a recent court decision, written, of course, by Scalia, that the 2A was interpreted to mean that individuals have an unfettered right to own guns. It's insanity. And it was dissented by every justice that I have any respect for.

[steve2470]

24. yes I agree nt

[hack89]

36. Except private ownership of guns is ubiquitous in American history

Even when there was no Miltia service involved. The first law to limit civilian guns didn't happen until the 1930's.

[Squinch]

50. What is your point?

[hack89]

52. That militia service has never been a condition for gun ownership. nt

[Squinch]

53. But the 2A, interpreted by anyone but Scalia through history, is.

[hack89]

54. President Obama agrees with Scalia. nt

[Squinch]

55. He has said that the second amendment is part of the constitution and

he upholds the constitution. Is that what you are taking as him agreeing with Scalia? If not, then what?

[hack89]

57. That the 2A protects an individual right. nt

[Squinch]

58. So now we are going in circles. As I have said to you before, all you are saying is that

Scalia's interpretation exists. We all know it exists. It is also a murder-permit that people hide behind to maintain their hobby, and as such it sucks, like many laws in history have sucked. And it needs to be changed.

So your argument STILL doesn't really say anything.

[hack89]

60. Nothing will change if the 2A magically disappears

first off, my state constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. But more importantly you are not going to pass the laws you want to pass. The 2A right now does not prevent you from passing strict gun control. You hide your political impotence and lack of popular support behind the evil 2A despite the fact (and you know this) that the 2A right now allows measures such as AWBs, registration, UBCs.

Time for you to stop blaming the 2A for your failures.

[Squinch]

61. I don't blame the 2A. I blame the people who insist that their hobby is worth a weekly massacre.

The ones who high five each other on the internet when gun control efforts are unsuccessful. The ones who are happy when another massacre has faded into memory and nothing has been done to stop the next one. Without those people there would be no gun lobbies and the difficulty of passing these laws would not be an issue.

I blame the people who diligently do their little part in their little corners of the world to try to convince people that gun control is impossible. The ones who argue against every suggestion, who tow the gun humper party line whenever a slaughter occurs, who rile up their friends about rights to their toys in the face of the deaths of human beings. I blame the ones who do their level best to defend this "right" you are so staunchly defending.

I think those people enable those who pull the triggers, and are therefore guilty.

[hack89]

62. That's nice

you keep doing that.

[Squinch]

67. And you keep defending a hobby that results in a weekly massacre.

[hack89]

75. ok nt

[backscatter712]

33. B-b-but, you're hurting their pwecious fee-fees. They need their FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!

[smirkymonkey]

48. LOL!

[Javaman]

19. if we want to start a conversation on guns, this is how we need to start off the conversation...

we don't want to take away your guns.

we want you to pass background tests and a psychological test in order for you to own one.

Personally, I believe that they believe they would fail and that's why they are against these tests.

the bottom line in much of this conversation isn't the possession of guns, it's whether or not the person is responsible enough to own one.

from there then we can proceed forward with removing certain types of weapons

If we go all hair on fire to try and ban every single one, we will lose. we just will. we have to pick at the thread to unravel the whole quilt.

this is the same tactic the ultra right wing is using against pro-choice.

[Squinch]

59. I want jail sentences for the last person listed as owning any gun used in a crime,

ownership recorded on a comprehensive database. And if the crime is committed with an unregistered gun, the criminal gets an extra 10 years.

We can legalize drugs to clear spaces in prisons for them.

[Javaman]

70. I would like that too, but it aint gonna happen.

if you look a the history of the NRA, they are powerful because they mapped out a plan in increments. slowly chipping away at society.

if we go in with something like this, it will never happen.

we have to chip at them like they did to us.

death by a thousand cuts.

[Squinch]

71. Did you see Chan790's idea?

It's not something I ever heard before, but it sounds very interesting. The average member of the NRA doesn't vote on NRA policy. If a few tens of thousands of anti-gun people join the NRA and vote, it might change the policy direction.

What do you think of that?

[Javaman]

72. That's a clever idea. where do I sign up? nt

[Squinch]

73. The only thing I am thinking is that if it becomes something that is well known, the gun nuts

will start signing up their dogs and sofas. But I think there is something in this. I'll see if he wants to do an OP about it.

[branford]

110. A few pertinent pieces of information:

First, the NRA is different from the NRA-ILA. The latter is actually the lobby arm.

Further, membership in the NRA is not free, low level membership does not include voting rights, people need 5 full years of consecutive membership to be eligible to vote, and to the extent people are actually willing to pay and wait to try the idea, it would likely have little effect on the NRA-ILA.

The NRA has obviously already accounted for and established means to counter such a tactic. The NRA is many things, but they are definitely politically astute.

[Squinch]

113. How is the membership in the NRA related to the membership in the NRA-ILA? Does the membership

of the NRA have any influence on the lobby arm?

Any idea of how much membership costs each year? And really, it's 5 years to vote? That kind of sucks, but at this point it's becoming worth any possible solution.

PS, thank you for this!

[branford]

116. The membership cost, voting rules, etc. are available on the NRA website.

I simply looked it up a while ago in response to similar discussions. [I'm not a gun owner or member of the NRA]

You should also note that NRA membership is often provided free with certain firearm and related purchases, and even required as part of membership at certain shooting ranges and clubs, mostly because of generous insurance incentives and legal and other support.

The NRA and NRA-ILA are obviously related, influence one another, and share officers and personnel, but the separation is clear due to legal technicalities and tax rules for non-profits and PAC's. I would imagine if the NRA dues paying membership shifted their political priorities, so would the NRA-ILA, albeit slowly, but this would be a near insurmountable task given the very intentionally established roadblocks to such a strategy.

Further, the NRA is not nearly as omnipotent a people seem to suggest. They have about 5 million members, out of 80-100+ million legal gun owners in the USA. If sufficient numbers of gun owners and their supporters opposed most NRA positions, they would quickly become marginalized. The NRA is also not even responsible for some of the largest recent gun rights victories. For instance, the Second Amendment Foundation was almost exclusively responsible for the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions.

Although I admittedly support gun rights with certain restrictions (largely in accordance with the actual Democratic Platform), I believe that making the NRA the boogeyman of the gun control movement is self-defeating and unproductive. It empowers them politically and helps with membership drives and fundraising, unnecessarily permits an easy excuse for legislative and judicial failures, and makes compromise on matters of real firearm safety all the more difficult.

[Squinch]

117. Again, thank you for this. Do you know if there are any organizations of gun owners who

oppose NRA positions? Any lobby groups?

[branford]

118. There are many non-NRA gun owner / rights organizations.

However, many are regional or local or only deal with particular issues, and none have of the membership of the NRA.

Some of these organizations support certain firearm regulations or take a more moderate or compromising tone concerning firearm policy, such as support for UBC's, but few groups of actual gun owners tend to be openly hostile towards the NRA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/gun-appreciation-day-groups

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

http://www.pinkpistols.org/about-the-pink-pistols/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gun_rights_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States

[Squinch]

119. Thank you so much.

[Javaman]

121. why does a psych test bother you? nt

[Hoyt]

109. IMO, almost everyone attracted to these weapons should be prohibited from owning them.

Much like we prohibit sexual perverts from living/going near schools, etc.

[branford]

120. You just implicitly compared the over 1 out of every 3 three American adults who own guns

to perverts and sexual predators.

That's not exactly a winning strategy for the Democratic Party.

[Hoyt]

122. Good, you can do simple math. The old, gunners will vote for GOP retort.

Most already do.

[branford]

123. You just cannot seem to accept that there are millions of loyal and otherwise liberal Democrats

(and needed independents) who are also gun owners and/or support gun rights. Luckily the leadership of our Party generally accepts the reality that you continually deny.

The most basic proof of this proposition is reflected in the actual Democratic Platform concerning firearms.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

[Hoyt]

125. There are roughly and equal number of vile racists in this country. Numbers don't make it right.

[randome]

27. The city of San Bernardino needs to publicly apologize...

...for letting citizens' bodies get in the way of all those 2nd Amendment bullets.

But I agree with Javaman. Hyperbole won't win this conversation. Still, it's fun on DU, isn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[malaise]

28. I see what you're doing here

Beautifully done - Rec

[hifiguy]

38. +1

They're dewicate wittle fwowers, you know.

[malaise]

64. ROFL

and I mean it

[Rex]

35. Always we must walk on eggshells around a certain group of people that have a penchant for

killing people on violent rampages.

[hifiguy]

37. Fuck the gun-humpers and ammosexuals in the ear

with a red-hot poker.

[smirkymonkey]

49. Hear, hear!

I have absolutely had it with them and their excuses. I have run out of tolerance.

[Photographer]

42. I have just discovered this to be true in spades.

YIKES!

[F4lconF16]

44. The Courtier's Reply

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

[hifiguy]

46. Nicely done!

[malaise]

101. Profound

[LiberalElite]

45. Kick! nt

[Paladin]

56. Nicely put, Orrex. Sad, but nicely put. (nt)

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Excellent!

[Generic Other]

66. Is this why they suddenly used the term long gun instead of assault rifle?

I hadn't heard it used in the past. The media and every one else in positions of power really have no regard for any of our lives.

[Paladin]

76. Yeah, the pro-gunners have convulsive fits over that "assault rifle" label....

even though that's exactly what semi-auto military-styled rifles were marketed as, years back (to the point there were "Assault Rifle" periodicals). If you want to have some fun with a pro-gunner who's copping an attitude over the usage of the "assault rifle" description, ask them if they're going by the Nazi German criteria. I shit you not---the Nazi definition carries big weight amongst the gun enthusiasts.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Long gun is used abroad regularly

why I did not even pay much attention to it.

(Yeah, I watch way too much foreign media as well)

[Generic Other]

85. I was surprised you weren't on this story

on the spot. Someone said you were at the doctor's office though. The story of a reporter's life, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. I have been posting news stories regularly

Just not here.

[Generic Other]

87. I was sure this one got your attention

Pretty much in your backyard. Just ironic that you were stuck in a waiting room as the story broke. Did they have the TV turned on Fox? I hate when that happens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Food channel actually

[Eleanors38]

81. Oh, go right ahead, Orrex. Please do. Do ALL you can.

[Dem2]

82. Agreed

And don't forget to get a permanent marker and draw a bullseye where you'd prefer the bullet when they eventually flip out.

[aikoaiko]

97. That was funny. Good satire

[lunatica]

99. I just heard Boehner on the TV say "guns don't kill people..."

What he and they don't get is that those of us who want gun control know this and are actually willing to do something about it, unlike him and his ilk.

If people kill, which we fucken already know, then gun control will keep guns out of some of their murdering hands.

[Turbineguy]

115. As well we know,

they are indeed delicate flowers.

[Thinkingabout]

126. The real victims are the innocent people killed and the families they left behind.

[boobooday]

127. Made that mistake on Twitter

One of them actually argued that the human sacrifice of innocents, including children, was necessary because...well...Jesus said they had a right to their guns.