Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal

[sarisataka]

190. Thank you for your reply

A) Recitation of common NRA talking points, use of the term "controller" as a pejorative.

Several of my opinions do match those of the NRA, but they were reached independently. I use the term controller to sum up the position of those who parrot VPC and Brady talking points which are as bad as those of the NRA and even more riddled with fallacies.
To be open, I am a NRA certified instructor but neither support or accept the majority of their positions as reasonable. As I posted in RKBA, my profession mandates holding the certification.

B) The NRA's agenda is self-serving and generally counter to the interests of public safety and democracy. Here in Florida we have a rather nefarious woman named Marion Hammer. She's the chief lobbyist for the NRA here and has written nearly word for word multiple laws enacted by the legislature which serve only to punish and intimidate anyone who dares cross the agenda of the gun lobby.

I would put forth that any organization is self serving. As to whether their position is counter to public safety is why there is so much debate on the subject. Their process is very democratic, they use the legislative process to further their cause. If they abuse that process is another subject of debate.
That said, I do believe in gun control to an extent that would give Mr. LaP nightmares. My only litmus test is 'will the control affect crime more than it burdens lawful gun owners.' Most of the 'reasonable' proposals do not pass. I am willing to give ideas a fair hearing.

C) I used that phrase for a satirical purpose. Of course only a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime. The problem is, the gun lobby would have you believe that gun violence only occurs at the hands of repeat criminals with illegally obtained firearms. The reality is quite the contrary. Page, Holmes, Lochner, Cho and many others were not "criminals" until the first time they pulled the trigger in the commission of their infamous acts. They obtained their weapons legally and very easily, despite the clear existence of warning signs that they were not fit individuals to be carrying such weapons. If you are going to ask whether I support a blanket ban on all firearms, I will tell you I do not. However, the laws surrounding purchase and licensing of guns are often way too lax, and the NRA's interests are seemingly to ensure that those laws are not tightened or subject to better enforcement.

Understood and agree. While those you named are by far the exception, the fact that they get past the current safeguards shows that current methods are not completely effective. We need to find ways to get better data into NCIS without resorting to non-due process ways such as the 'watch list'.

And extra credit: To answer your question, I do believe a person has such a right, but with a caveat. If that person overreacts or uses poor judgment in such a situation, they--as the carrier of a deadly weapon--are legally responsible. Self-defense only goes so far. That is the situation that I believe to be at play with Mr. Zimmerman.

Congratulations on being the first to answer. I completely agree with your stipulations. Carrying a gun should never tempt you into doing something you would not do if not armed. As the operator, the carrier is completely responsible for the results of the use of the gun.


Thank you again for the serious reply. Have a good evening.