

Why I just joined the NRA - kcima
http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2013/01/13/why-i-just-joined-the-nra-n1487478

======
jmadsen
The way to break gun violence is to teach people that the way to solve
differences is not to make sure you're a bigger bad ass than anyone who might
come in conflict with you.

Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation.

That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to
Japan.

~~~
hga
Japan is a really serious outlier when it comes to not having a "love" of
confrontation! I mean, their word for "you're wrong" doesn't even have that
semantic content.

I suspect America is a lot closer to the middle than it.

~~~
jmadsen
I wasn't comparing to Japan, merely stating how it took an effort to change.

America may be in the middle confrontation-wise, but when you add in the ease
of obtaining a handgun, you get the current problem.

~~~
hga
Debatable, see my research on non-gun US and all method U.K. murder rates,
which are really close: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935644>

I take this as evidence we're simply a violent people, however we're armed or
not.

------
ericcumbee
I applied for my Georgia Firearms (Concealed Carry) Licence today. My problem
with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will
make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)

Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that
"If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane
irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people
that peacefully also have guns.

~~~
phinnaeus
I'm not in favor of gun regulation, but I disagree that the way to have less
violence is to have more guns.

I just wish people liked guns less.

~~~
ericcumbee
12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need
less boxcutters as well.

I dont really think people that like guns are the problem though. I would not
classify myself as someone that "likes" guns. On the other hand i know people
that "like" guns, and it's not that they likes the power a gun has, but they
certainly understand and respect it, and therefore take extra care. They like
them because they appreciate them for the same reason that people appreciate
works of art, or sportscars. For the Craftsmanship, for the minior details
that went into the design of the gun, for the historical value of the gun.

~~~
Steko
"12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need
less boxcutters as well."

Pretty sure they used large aircraft to kill people and no one is crying
tyranny over the idea that large aircraft need a bunch of regulations to
ensure public safety.

------
johng
I'm surprised this type of stuff hasn't gotten more attention here on HN. What
some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd
amendment. I will side with the forefathers who made this counter 100 out of
100 times in relation to any recent politicians.

No one ever said that Freedom was easy or that it didn't come at a cost. It
does and always will. But maintaining freedom and our core principles as laid
out long ago should be a goal we never stop working towards. This seems like a
huge step backwards.

~~~
retube
> What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd
> amendment

So what? Maybe the 2nd amendment is wrong, or a bad idea, or a 200 year old
proclamation that is no longer relevant in modern times? People's attachment
to this clause is just... fundamentalist.

And why do people insist on equating gun ownership with freedom? You're not
allowed to own bombs or missiles, does that also mean I am not free?

There's lots of things we're not free to do which actually makes us freer: not
to steal, or house break, or kill people. I for one am glad my freedom is
curtailed in this manner. It means i can live in a (largely) peaceful and safe
society, and am free to go about my business with minimum threat to my
existence or assets. And further adding to my sense of security is the
knowledge that I am very unlikely to ever be threatened, injured or killed by
a gun as almost no one owns one here - because they are illegal.

Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns, what makes
american's so special? why do you need to own a gun? (yeah sure, self defence,
but if no one had them in the first place that wouldn't be necessary)

~~~
johng
What makes American's so special is the fact that we are a unique country. A
country that was built on our core values, as they are laid out in our
constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us
wrong.

We are the same country that came to the worlds aid (and europe, especially)
during WW1 and WW2.

Our beliefs aren't perfect. They just happen to be less wrong then others,
IMHO... and in the opinion of a large majority of our country.

If you can't understand why the right to keep and bear arms is an essential
aspect of being american then you are short sighted and have refused to see
how history repeats itself over and over throughout mankind.

I 100% believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said the following: "Any
society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will
deserve neither and lose both."

Once you start picking apart our constitution, little by little, you soon open
up the flood gates for rights and liberties to be taken away much more easily.

They can already wire-tap without a warrant. Now they want the guns. This is
how it starts...

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I
wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Lets modify the above...

First they came for the assault rifles, and I didn't speak out because I
didn't own one.

Then they came for the bolt action rifles, and I didn't speak out because I
didn't own one.

Then they came for the pistols, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own
one.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left with the capabilities to
defend me.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

Having the ability to arm yourself and defend yourself and uprise against OUR
OWN GOVERNMENT should the need arise is specifically why the 2nd amendment was
written the way it was... and I believe they felt very strongly about this.
It's #2 on the list after all.

When we try to outsmart the people that made our great country, we usually
mess it up.

Just my 2c.

~~~
Steko
"constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us
wrong"

Slavery?

~~~
hga
Errr, without accepting slavery there wouldn't have been a Constitution or
United States of America. And it did provide a mechanism for outlawing it,
although that of course just ratified the outcome on the battlefields.

[ Clarified: it -> slavery. ]

~~~
Steko
I have no idea what your point is.

"Errr, without accepting it there wouldn't have been a Constitution or United
States of America. "

Maybe this is also true about the second amendment?

"And it did provide a mechanism for outlawing it"

Maybe this is also relevant to gun control?

------
thisisdallas
I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I
think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for
something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a
government military takeover but something along the lines of someone
somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I
don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of
politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this
recent uprise in government corruption.

The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban
guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur
in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the
proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after
assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more
people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of
the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control
ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet
it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from
the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the
problem….

~~~
Steko
"I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for
something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of
gun control legislation.'

So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being
murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to
prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something?
That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any
pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?

~~~
kcima
No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns
from everyone because of this. It is not logical.

32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to
take away your car.

If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run
over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to
automobiles?

I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to
understand?

Let me put it a different way.

Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in
prison.

Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.

~~~
Steko
"32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying
to take away your car."

Plenty of new regulations related to cars and highways every year to make them
safer.

"If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to
run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to
automobiles?'

Are you really asking that if reality was completely different would I maybe
believe different things then I believed in this reality? Maybe. The Newtown
tragedy is not a singular event. It's just the latest event.

"how is this so difficult to understand?"

How is the empirical fact that gun control works and limits deaths in many
countries so hard for you to understand?

------
ltcoleman
I'm not completely convinced all of his facts are backed up, but I do agree
with his sentiments. Gun control will never be an answer to violent crime, far
too easy to obtain illegally. I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal
assault rifles during the Clinton ban.

I agree that mental illness awareness is a much better place to spend the $500
million Obama just asked for gun control.

More government always fixes things! .... right?!

~~~
Steko
"far too easy to obtain illegally."

Please go to Japan and obtain a gun illegally as proof of this claim.

" I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the
Clinton ban."

Bad regulation is proof that all regulation doesn't work! ... right?

~~~
hga
Japan has forbidden the keeping and bearing of arms by normal subjects since
_1588_ ; the collective guilt based controls that followed during the
Shogunate were sufficiently hideous that I really can't see any utility in
comparing the two nations in these areas.

~~~
Steko
Handguns were outlawed in 1958 and new rifles since 1971. Shotguns are
available but heavily regulated.

"I really can't see"

The point I was making was pretty obvious but I'll repeat it here again: it is
actually very possible to make it hard to obtain a gun. Japan is hardly the
only exhibit.

------
rdl
If you're considering joining the NRA for the same reasons as in this article,
I'd strongly suggest you also join the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second
Amendment Foundation (SAF). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
(JPFO) is also well regarded, and if you're a Californian, Calguns (or in
other states, your state's gun association).

~~~
hga
If you want effectiveness, though, I only recommend the NRA (reluctantly,
details upon request) and the SAF, since the latter has been the major driver
in the lawsuits that started with _Heller_. The JPFO has done some good
propaganda, but the last time I checked went off in a bad tangent with L. Neil
Smith (who got too extreme for me not too many books after _The Probability
Broach_ ). The GAO is too partisan and into conservative and Republican causes
beyond the RKBA to be of much use even in their ratings, and they have very
very little influence.

~~~
rdl
SAF is probably my favorite. Firearms Policy Coalition (which seems to be
Calguns + SAF) is also nice, and new.

My big problem with NRA is how spammy they are to members. NRA-ILA is one
thing, but being offered overpriced auto insurance, etc. all the time was
really annoying. I eventually got off all the marketing lists, but it took a
few tries.

~~~
strlen
I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to
join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby
against stupid gun laws.

However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of
population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing
against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the
longer term (10+ years out) outlook.

~~~
hga
That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA.

I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support
some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I
think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are.

I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning
against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have had a nationwide
sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes from Florida in 1987 to Wisconson
in 2011, totaling 42 states (with Vermont, Washington and maybe Indiana
already having been there before it started)?

8 million outstanding licenses and counting, plus who knows in the 4 states
with "Constitutional Carry" (no license required if you're not forbidden),
Arizona having a substantial population (6.5 million, 15th in the nation).

And I don't believe the gun grabber propaganda that the same people are just
buying more guns; for one extreme claim, someone did the math and came out
with an _average_ $100K investment per gun owning citizen.

But, yes, the NRA's pop-culture stuff, especially gaming, was an own goal and
doesn't help in the long term. But there are plenty of RKBA types like myself
who are happy to poison young people's minds about the NRA ^_^, so we'll see
what happens after we get past the current mess.

~~~
strlen
> especially gaming

Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with
AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say
"yes."

I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from
the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the
first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

~~~
hga
I would modify the above to:

" _but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously
protected by_ current _first amendment_ jurisprudence"

You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or
downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable
future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

~~~
strlen
7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose
judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion,
man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco
parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving
minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists
(given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).

The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies --
Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a
fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:

[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_bill_20120522_amended_asm_v96.html)

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47)

------
johng
This is a great video on what needs to be said:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR3t7j2tUec)

