6th March 2018, 9:06 AM
The NRA, at one time, was just a hunting and gun safety organization. That's the NRA my dad joined. Now it's a sham, a ridiculous caricature. I swear that "little puff of happiness" bit was in an episode of Family Guy. My dad owns guns, and the way I was raised is completely counter to what they're promoting now. Namely, guns ARE dangerous, no ifs ands or buts. They aren't "safe in the hands of a trained professional", they're still dangerous there too, and recognizing that is what makes them a trained professional.
I don't care if you're against guns or for them, the NRA is NOT the group you want supporting your cause, at least not any more. After that coup that let to the extremists and business interests taking over the group, they're not the same.
I think modelling our gun laws after Australia's is a big step. I keep hearing "second amendment" as the reason that couldn't be done, but Australia didn't outlaw guns. They just heavily regulated them. If you want a gun, you can still get it, but it must be registered, and every individual gun must have a justifying explanation for why it's needed. Hunting, hobby, those are allowed, but "self defense" is not a recognized reason there. Hell, let me go one further. Being a member of a well regulated militia could also be justification, but each state much in fact regulate said militias. They have to regularly report their members, if one disappears or does something disturbing, and which guns belong to that militia, be subject to regular inspections, and (and this is important) they actually have to respond when called for by their state to serve in times of need. Those needs are probably mainly going to be disaster relief (which won't really require guns) but failure to actually report is grounds for dismissal or disbanding of that militia. Notice I did leave all this up to individual states. I gave this a lot of thought, and I think this fits the requirements of the second amendment quite well.
I don't care if you're against guns or for them, the NRA is NOT the group you want supporting your cause, at least not any more. After that coup that let to the extremists and business interests taking over the group, they're not the same.
I think modelling our gun laws after Australia's is a big step. I keep hearing "second amendment" as the reason that couldn't be done, but Australia didn't outlaw guns. They just heavily regulated them. If you want a gun, you can still get it, but it must be registered, and every individual gun must have a justifying explanation for why it's needed. Hunting, hobby, those are allowed, but "self defense" is not a recognized reason there. Hell, let me go one further. Being a member of a well regulated militia could also be justification, but each state much in fact regulate said militias. They have to regularly report their members, if one disappears or does something disturbing, and which guns belong to that militia, be subject to regular inspections, and (and this is important) they actually have to respond when called for by their state to serve in times of need. Those needs are probably mainly going to be disaster relief (which won't really require guns) but failure to actually report is grounds for dismissal or disbanding of that militia. Notice I did leave all this up to individual states. I gave this a lot of thought, and I think this fits the requirements of the second amendment quite well.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)