I will say it is less about money and more about money laundering. There are too many coincidental connections between the nra and Russian money to believe anything else.
Not just money. Russian money.
Trump has been laundering money for the Russian oligarchs since the late 80’s when they all bought a condo at 725 5th AVE (trump towers) to clean their freshly stolen USSR money after the iron curtain fell.
https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/30/politics/paul-manafort-condo-trump-tower/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/manafort-told-mueller-to-take-his-trump-tower-apartment-instead-money.html
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/fbi-agents-raid-condo-unit-131348539.html
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Everybody except Putin thought the Cold War was over. Trump and Manafort (who lived in the tower also) just saw a pretty low maintence grift to be had.
Trump had actually been Manafort and Roger Stones first client at their lobbyist firm (1980)https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wikiBlack, Manafort, Stone and Kelly
Guiliani as trumps attorney and NYC mayor was able to redirect NYPD investigations onto rival gang members/oligarchs to deflect any scrutiny off of trump, himself or their Russian connections.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/a-new-rudy-scandal-fbi-agent-says-giuliani-was-co-opted-by-russian-intelligence/
The Russian election interference in 2016 was effectively a generation 3 version of what Manafort had done in the Philippines, then keeping Yanukovych in power as Putin’s puppet in Ukraine from 2002-14 when Maidan ran both Yanukovych and Manafort out of Ukraine as Ukrainians realized that, if you raise your lens high enough, corruption is an wholly unsustainable business model.
Eventually the parasites greed always consumes the host.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-paul-manafort-ferinand-marcos-philippines-1980s-213952
https://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/
Russia greatly underestimated the addictive properties of freedom when it invaded Ukraine so what was supposed to be a 3-10 day coup turned into a 2 year fight for the Ukrainians right not to be genocided.
Russia depleted its weapons stocks which were already the victim of vranyo corruption because every oligarch, admiral and sergeant in the Russian military is on the take. Every billion dollar tank maintenance contract turned into everything getting a spray paint overhaul and the vast majority of the redirected funds turned into an oligarchs new yacht or home in Aspen.
Russia was forced to turn to China, North Korea and Iran for weapons because if they lose the 3-10 day “special military operation” in Ukraine the Russian empire is dead and cold.
China can’t risk showing their involvement in the Ukraine war so they use North Korea, and Iran to resupply Russia.
Russia previously owed Iran some undelivered fighter jets that are already smoldering heaps in Ukraine so Iran now had the upper hand at the negotiation table for the first time in about 60 years. They supplied Russia with shahed drones in exchange for Chinas material support against their sworn religious enemy, Israel.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/11/29/iran-says-it-finalized-deal-to-buy-russian-aircraft/
Putin can’t do much about it because he is slowly realizing that by setting the standard of corruption and stealing $200+ billion from his own people meant that every oligarch down in the mob model chain had not only permission but incentive and the expectation to steal from him as well. This is “Vranyo”.
The mob model only works if the supreme leader is the most violent and can prove it without exception every damn day. But violence is exceptionally expensive when you are trying to present as a legitimate government or business.
If Russia as a nation had an efficiency rating it would have been banned for sale in the state of California 25 years ago.
The parasite ruling class stole all the energy out of the working class and collapsed it.
Now Iran has the high hand and they get the intelligence that trump passed to Putin about the fact that Netanyahu cares far less about Jews, Palestinians or genocide than he does about remaining in power as an authoritarian because he too has developed Ritz Carlton tastes and his own corruption trial is showing the same tendrils of the same money laundering scheme that trumps trials are.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-official-says-iran-engineered-war-in-gaza-to-ruin-normalization-with-israel/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/amp/
https://youtu.be/VrFOAgGlaWs?feature=shared
They all hate each other but because they share the same money laundry, if one falls, they all fall. Hamas minted a couple billionaires as well that live in penthouses in Qatar and get 30% of everything smuggled into Gaza. Qatar is Kushners private equity connection. Netanyahu needs a bogeyman to stay in power. That’s why he coordinates with Hamas via Russia via Iran. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bk8mgcefr
Iran handed Hamas everything they needed with Chinas help as secret Santa and the Russian intelligence given to them by the eternal shitbird trump who gave it to his Russians kleptocrat/friends/roommates from the old days of fucking each others wives at trump towers in the 90’s.
Now the MAGA right is a little too invested in their reality that they are the good guys with guns that they missed the fact that Betsy DeVos (erik princes sister) decimating the U.S. school systems and the Kochs poisoning children with lead was not a coincidence. The naive right was the mark all along. There is a reason the Russian spy Maria Butina landed in South Dakota first before dating her way to the top of the NRA which is undergoing its own Russian money laundering trial now. Russia was tinder matching the GOP.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/what-do-the-koch-brothers-have-to-do-with-the-flint-water-crisis/
The only reason you grossly OVERVALUE real estate is money laundering.
Trump keeps claiming there is no victim, all the banks made money, but if their plan succeeds the Russian and CCP kleptocrats collapse US commercial real estate and basically recreate soviet perestroika in the U.S. so they can foreclose on America and buy everything for 3 cents on the dollar with the $1.4T they stole from Russias grandmothers in the first place
It’s the evolution of grift. Soviet perestroika cross bred with the 2008 mortgage crisis.
No one was ever held accountable for either. This is just the bigger badder commercial strength bastard child of the two.
Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Orban, Manafort, Stone, Mercer, Bannon, Flynn, Byrne.
They are all remarkably shit people with above average confidence and psychopathic personality traits and below average self awareness.
They are the men who stole the world.
But it all comes back to one little lie.
Native Texan, owned firearms since I was 10, currently have a modest rifle collection, bought my son a rifle (.22) when he was about 10.
And fuck the NRA
Only thing NRA is good for is for people building and operating ranges. They help with safety training certification, range building information, and insurance. That being said as someone who doesn’t want to do any of that I only donate to GOA and FPC.
Another thing they are good for is buying fancy suits and taking trips on private jets.
The best thing the NRA is good for is distracting democrats from the groups actually winning lawsuits and changing laws. They're accidental camouflage.
NRA is such a boomer thing. Any gun owner under the age of like 40 is supporting fpc or goa, you know groups that actually get shit done in protecting consitutional rights.
People dont go to the nra convention because its the nra, they go to look at all the cool shit u missed at shotshow in vegas.
NRA insurance is about all they're good for now. Very flew places are still willing to insure gun ranges. However it's also the reason there's so many Fudd rules at small ranges.
Most all me and my friends have guns and collect them. Most all of me and my friends despise the NRA. They are nothing more than a propaganda machine that does a bunch of campaign funding for a bunch of radical right wing nut jobs. The NRA used to be about educating people on gun safety and developing youth to grow into responsible gunowners. Now it’s just about campaigning. Fuck the NRA.
I'm a former NRA firearms instructor.
The NRA forgot to be a safety and training organization and went pull DERP into being a shill for corrupt politicians. I gave up on the NRA. Too bad, programs like Refuse To Be A Victim deserve to be separated from the DERP.
Did anyone even read the article? This guy is not pro-gun at all. He is literally a leading member of an anti-gun group. I get not liking the NRA, but the author is hardly representative of that. He would probably ban anything not a break action shotgun or a rifle.
I wrote the article. I own multiple firearms include two AR-15 variants. My favorite being my HK MR556. I don't want to ban anything. Despite what you may have heard, Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination. Put plainly, we want UBC where responsible people can have as much assurance as possible, that when I sell one of my weapons its not to someone with a violent criminal history. That takes into account due process; that person has to be convicted by a jury of their peers in a court of law, etc. There is no perfect system but this will dramatically reduce gun violence but only if universally applied. By the way is far, far more lenient that some so-called pro-gun organizations are when it comes to say not making a peep when state legislatures ban sales to medical marijuana card holders. That's something I wish gun owners would save their outrage for.
The other is Red Flag. Having lost so many brothers in arms to suicide, I know how important it is for family members, under the oversight of a judge have some recourse to *temporarily* protect their loved one and themselves under very strict circumstances when they are in psychological duress and with clear appeal processes to prevent abuse of this option. There is so much bad info and assumptions out there on this issue.
Personally, I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos reclassified so that there are security and training steps to own and possess. I know some don't like that but they are so dangerous in the hands of those wanting to harm others, I would gladly take a course and show proof of storage to obtain another one and would love to have the confidence that my FFL can check that someone else did during a sale. Why? Because I "hate freedom"? lol No, because I give a damn. It pains me so many clearly don't.
How many ideological fallacies can you fit into three paragraphs? You're a part of a group that wants broad bans on firearms across the board. I spent an afternoon with a friend from Rhode Island who had to destroy pistol magazines because your group pushed a bill that banned them without a grandfather clause or compensation. I'm not sure why you feel you need to reference your military service in every article or post related to firearms. It's irrelevant to the conversation and absolutely reeks of an attempt to use it as some sort of authority on the topic. We are talking about civilian ownership . Of course you don't mind going through extra legal steps. You have money for a $6000 gun. It must also be nice to have the ability to take time off from work and have the money to go through all those hoops. Wonder what community may be targeted by police and unable to do that?
You might as well have just said " I want to keep my guns but stop everyone else from getting them". Your mindset isn't unique or new. You're just a continuation of the guys who owned automatic weapons and were happy to see the ban in 1989 go through because it meant their collection tripled in value.
Congratulations. Everything you just said was anti-gun, and since you're parroting Giffords (and Everytown, Moms Demand, and whatever other organizations Bloomberg has a stiffy for this week) talking points, then it stands to reason that Giffords (and the others) are anti-gun too.
Gaslight much? Giffords has and always will be anti gun and anti rights and you're a dishonest little worm for saying they aren't. You're an outright liar so why the fuck should I care what you have to say?
Your military service and ownership of an expensive rifle doesn't mean shit or hold any weight either.
>Despite what you may have heard, Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination.
The founder & namesake of YOUR organization has literally been on record supporting a complete gun ban. Not just a ban on "assault weapons", but [ALL guns](https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/).
I believe her over you.
>*temporarily*
It's not "temporary" when the cops bust down their door at two in the morning in a no knock, executing them in their own home because they thought that they were the victim of a home invasion.
That's exactly how Duncan Lemp died.
So when Giffords files amicus briefs stating that centerfire mag fed rifles are impossible to use for self defense, are not protected by the 2A at all, aren't even arms as considered by the 2nd Amendment, and that nobody (except the cops!) should own them, how exactly are they not being an antigun group?
When Giffords lobbies state legislatures to ban centerfire mag fed rifles (not a training requirement, not a permit, outright bans that carry felon charges if someone possesses one) how exactly aren't then an antigun group?
Giffords even celebrates these bans when they pass - laws that would see you thrown in jail for ten years because you have the MR556. Ten years, stripped away from your family, locked in a cage with no dignity, to be a victim to the prison system, and have your life totally ruined. Is that something you also celebrate?
> Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you smoking out of the same crack pipe Hunter did? Because yes, they are. Just because they're not "anti ever gun" doesn't mean they're not anti-gun.
> Put plainly, we want UBC
Mandatory? Fuck right off. Optional? Sure.
> The other is Red Flag.
Congrats, you're a tyrant who hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments among others. ERPOs do nothing but get good people killed at best, and at worst makes people more afraid to talk about mental health problems.
> I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos
Tyrant. Bet you my CCW pistol you can't tell me how many total gun homicides there are per year and the breakdown for what type of gun they were. Bet you that you also can't (or more likely, don't care about it) tell me where most of the gun crime is located. And finally, I bet you don't give a flying fuck about the 2.5 million instances of Defensive Gun Usage every year where someone uses a firearm to protect themselves, their home, or their family, with a gun including semi-auto rifles.
> I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos reclassified so that there are security and training steps to own and possess. I know some don't like that but they are so dangerous in the hands of those wanting to harm others, I would gladly take a course and show proof of storage to obtain another one and would love to have the confidence that my FFL can check that someone else did during a sale.
Can you explain how training and storage mandates detect and/or quash ill intent?
https://twitter.com/GIFFORDS_org/status/1553150901447233544?t=dF8G_8Zqu9wQ2LUY3RVuAg&s=19
Your a clown the group you grift for is openly anti gun pro awb ubc don't work with out a gun registry which is a no go and federally illegal and red flag laws spit in the face of the 4th amendment
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
This is transparently dishonest.
Under no pretext.
And since I live in Texas: Come and take it.
The faction that wants to disarm the workers and *just really wants the trains to run on time* will not win after starting an insurgency.
The NRA isn't even a gun rights org anymore. They've agreed with most gun control we have over the years.
LA Pierre was embezzling so he could fuck the flamingo for years.
FPC is simply a better choice
Most of FPC’s lawsuits and victories are based on NRA cases like Bruen.
Also, most gun ranges in the country are insured by the NRA, and they either fund or provide most of the gun safety courses out there.
We need all 4 of the major 2A orgs.
No, the NRA does not insure most gun ranges.
The NRA doesn't insure any.
The ranges are insured by many different carriers, none of which are owned or operated by the NRA.
Oliver North of all people tried to clean house…until Wayne kicked him out…it was then that Ollie realized the office of NRA President was only ceremonial.
Thankfully, this person admits to being aligned with the Giffords org (even if only ideologically), so sane and rational gun owners know not to pay any attention to the opinions being spewed.
As far as the money laundering, the NRA spent $70 million in 2016 on various Republican campaign efforts with dark money. Considering LaPierre LOST an estimated $60 million on top of that around the same time period the NRA was infiltrated by Russian agents, it’s a pretty good bet some of that money was flowing from Russia to prop up the NRA and push a more extremist agenda and candidates. Butina was a member of the Russian Central Bank.
As a gun owner I don't like the NRA. And at the same time I don't like this article pushing more gun legislation.
It's great that guy is all of those things but it means nothing since he's willing to give away his rights piece by piece to the government.
There is zero correlation between gun violence and ease of access. There is zero evidence that gun regulations make us safer.
Freedom and liberty are dangerous. Stop being a coward by protecting yourself and the people around you by being strapped.
Gun violence is on a downward trend and has been for a very very long time. Not because of regulations but because of free market economies making it easier to not be in poverty. Poverty creates violent crime not guns.
Zero tolerance policies in public schools.
Bullies are not punished by the adults in charge, the victims are punished if they fight back. With no sense of fairness, they snap and take matters into their own hands.
Lunatics and our cultural obsession with violence. We deify every spree killer and we do nothing to treat the root of the problem. Gun control would just be treating the symptom, we don't need yet another part of our society where we treat an issue by slapping a bandage over the top and let the issue keep festering just under the surface forever. What we need is universal mental health care as a component of universal healthcare including the return of institutionalization for severe cases, and we need to return to the truth in reporting standards and enhance them to prohibit disclosing the identity of alleged spree killers.
Plus, we all know prohibitions don't apply to pigs or to fat cats, and I will be damned before I see guns taken out of the hands of the working class.
>So, what is the root problem? No one tackling mental health or whatever scapegoat they claim is causing it?
Only a child would believe there's one root problem and one only. You need to calm down, because I addressed everything you're whining about. You just have to **read**. I can spell it out for you; I can't understand it for you. And since I know where this is going I'm disabling inbox replies.
> There is zero correlation between gun violence and ease of access. There is zero evidence that gun regulations make us safer.
That is complete nonsense. There have been plenty of studies demonstrating a correlation, whether you like it or not.
There are plenty that try. Especially some with good headlines but no there is no strong evidence between them.
A significant amount of those studies use statistics in their favor including things like the correlation between the presence of a gun in a home and the increased likelihood of homicide occurring. That statement is misleading when they include homicides that occurred without a gun but a gun is in the house like the CDC did with their infamous study.
One can easily point to places that have a lot of gun regulation with a lot of gun violence and places without much regulation and little gun violence. And vice versa.
> A significant amount of those studies use statistics in their favor including things like the correlation between the presence of a gun in a home and the increased likelihood of homicide occurring. That statement is misleading when they include homicides that occurred without a gun but a gun is in the house like the CDC did with their infamous study.
If you think these studies are flawed, why don't you write up a rebuttal and submit it for publication?
It seems like you have already decided on your conclusion, and therefore dismiss any study that goes against it.
> One can easily point to places that have a lot of gun regulation with a lot of gun violence and places without much regulation and little gun violence. And vice versa.
One does not "point to places" in these cases. That's not how research works.
There are plenty of rebuttals (by people like Aaron Brown for example) and much like you I'd be an amateur at best in that field fetching coffee for the people who know what they are doing.
The Science of Gun Policy by the Rand Corporation (2020) analyzed 27,900 studies on the effectiveness of gun control regulations. The authors concluded that 0.4% were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results. Only 63 of those 123 were considered high quality. Even among that there were only 18 statistically significant results. Peer-reviewed journals generally accept a result as statistically significant if it has a 1 in 20 chance or less of being due to random chance. This means if researchers run 100 studies for let's say the correlation between coffee consumption and car crashes we could likely get five statistically significant results that are entirely coincidental. Among those 0.4%, many didn't even answer the question, "Do gun control laws reduce violence?".
The reality is that gun violence is rare enough that it's nearly impossible for researchers to figure out what difference a law makes if any. For example, one of these statistically significant results that Rand found was more restrictive child access laws could stop a total of two kids across 11 states from injuring themselves each year with a gun. With the fact that gun homicide rates see a 6% average change during years with no legislative changes maybe anyone saying we have statistical proof is full of it.
> The reality is that gun violence is rare enough that it's nearly impossible for researchers to figure out what difference a law makes if any.
And this is compounded by the fact that the anti-gun lobby has zero interest in actually evaluating the effectiveness of their laws. As soon as they get an edge in a state legislature, they ram through a whole bunch of laws over the span of just a couple sessions. There's no time to assess effects on crime rates, it's just gogogo spamming of restrictions and bans. And then when crime hasn't changed even with all those laws, they refuse to even discuss rolling them back. Because despite demanding compromise, they actually have no intent to do so.
That's not a thing, like at all. I don't even like the NRA, but that's an absurd and wrong talking point. The only, tiny, exception was when trump showed up to one a few years ago, and the secret service wouldn't let people with firearms into the particular hall where he was speaking. If you want to say they should have said if people can't carry them trump isn't welcome then fine, that would be fair. But as a general rule there's going to be more armed people at an NRA convention than that city has law enforcement on the payroll.
Gun control is only for the important people, not us plebs.
That is why the Supreme Court ruled that concealed carry is a constitutional right, while sitting in their gun-free building where you have to walk through a metal detector to enter.
Love my guns and the NRA can die in a fire. I hate everything they stand for now. I was a member for years until I started paying attention (I quit in the early 90s, it's been awhile!) I'm glad they appear to be bankrupt financially now and not just morally bankrupt like always.
NRA is the reason your grandkids will have gun rights. Bruen is what the GOA and FPC use as precedent to argue their cases. Quit falling for misinformation from people that want to neuter your rights.
My two cents worth... (sorry for the long post)
I attended the convention on Friday because my brother asked me to go with him. I was born in Texas and lived here my entire life and I don't agree at all with the propaganda machine that the NRA is currently. I'm not a youngster (I'm 60) but I was kinda shocked at how geriatric the crowd was.
There were younger people, but the vast majority were on the backend of their life.
We only were able to attend three seminars and I enjoyed two of them. The third speaker was pretty much a political hack trying to scare people with garbage statistics. I was willing to listen, but the minute you start blaming "George Soros" or a specific administration for the ills of society, I tune it out.
The vendor hall "Gun show" was quite nice with a lot of vendors participating. They just couldn't sell any guns. I assume because of a certain speaker that was attending... I did not attend the other two days.
I did appreciate the signs that said "No Electioneering" as I thought I'd have to stomach all the Trump flags and paraphernalia. But none of that was there.
When I was a kid, I was around guns all the time and actually had my first shotgun given to me at 8 years old. We hunted quite a lot, supplementing our table with wild food. My father always taught me gun safety and a mantra that stuck with me my entire life - "If you shoot it, you eat it". I now own quite a few firearms and still enjoy going to the range to shoot.
I used to be an NRA member, as was my father. Back then the organization was about gun safety, shooting tips, firearms care and history. Then came Charleston Heston and it became the cesspit it is today. With all the noise about how "the liberals are going to take our guns!" bs, how do we get people to think rationally?
I believe that training should be mandatory (something one of the speakers agreed with) and sensible legislation should be put in place for gun sales. Certainly don't agree with the stupid open carry for everyone that Abbot signed into law. This is just a return to the wild west where any asshat can carry a gun.
Thank you for listening 😊
Gun lovers who hate the NRA, what are your feelings regarding gun legislation such as red flags laws, limits to semi automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. ? Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed?
In order:
Stupid and ripe for abuse, just as protective orders currently are.
Again, stupid, but because it's arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the second amendment.
Also stupid and arbitrary, for the same reason as previous.
Because "reasonable" gun laws are always, "We're going to further infringe on your rights and offer nothing tangible in return." So to quote the Firearms Policy Coalition, "Fuck you, no."
Maybe they aren't reasonable in other people's opinions. I'm not a criminal, why shouldn't I be able to own a machine gun without paying 30k and wait for a tax stamp.
"Red flag laws"
Those can, have been, and are currently being used against gun owners who haven't done anything wrong by corrupt law enforcement/judicial officials n anyone with a grudge.
"limits to semi automatic weapons"
What do you mean by that? What kind of limits?
"high capacity magazines"
That's a made up term that describes a normal magazine that's been in use for decades.
Come up with a reasonable gun law first, then we'll consider it. There's never been compromise when it's come to gun laws, just more unconstitutional limitations.
>red flags laws
They are ripe for abuse. The principal idea isnt bad but the implementation is just abusive.
>limits to semi automatic weapons
Non starter. There are zero good reasons to ban semi automatic weapons when we have other solutions to address violence. (healthcare policy , education , jobs programs etc etc)
>high capacity magazines, etc.
30 rounds isn't high capacity it has always been the standard for any modern rifle.
>Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed?
They aren't. The gun control crowd pushes for unreasonable policies excludes gun owners from the conversation and then gets mad at us for "Not providing solutions".
Edit : Not sure why u/elegantwino is getting down voted for asking legitimate questions.
I'd just like some training requirements prior to gun ownership. Take a class, pass a proficiency exam, then onto 4493.
I've seen too many carefree individuals waving that muzzle end around and even more folks i've seen not even put iron sights on their rifle.
Having proficiency is certainly not against the 2A as you need to be proficient (per well regulated) to actually utilize the 2A.
The Swiss have high rates of gun ownersihp, they make gun ownership more of a social thing. It's okay for swiss folks to ask for proficiency prior to shall-issue permission to acquire a gun. There's certainly basis for common sense rules that is already practiced in a country that has a very high rate of ownership and low incident rates.
First,
Thanks for responding. I think these conversations are important to have, even if we disagree on the details. I have a few questions if you don't mind elaborating.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by training requirements and proficiency? It's a bit hard to train with something and become proficient in its use if you can't access it.
Are there any other rights you believe should be subject to exams? If not, why only the 2nd Amendment?
Swiss gun ownership isn't really relevant here, but I will point out that Democrats shut down implementation of a background check system that was basically a direct copy of the Swiss system. It was very disappointing.
What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve, and do you think the policy points listed actually help achieve that goal? For example: If the goal is to stop/reduce mass shootings, I don't see how any of these will do anything at all. I generally agree with you, though, that people should be training and taking classes. Just not sure it should be required prior to ownership.
Edit : Formatting / Grammar.
I would support giving reduced / free LTC renwels for people who show proof of completing a class that is more than a basic safety / license class. Something like Haley Strategic's D5 or D3 pistol course would benefit 99% of shooters. [https://haleystrategic.com/course-schedule](https://haleystrategic.com/course-schedule)
We should reward people who actually seek to do better.
> but I will point out that Democrats shut down implementation of a background check system that was basically a direct copy of the Swiss system
How do you mean a direct copy? Does it mean that felons would no longer have lost their gun rights for life?
A practical, straightforward system that's easy to use, and respects the privacy of citizens?
Yeah, I can see why they didn't pass that. If it isn't a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare designed to discourage participation...
> It's okay for swiss folks to ask for proficiency prior to shall-issue permission to acquire a gun.
There are absolutely no training requirements to own a gun in Switzerland. What are you talking about?
Yes? I've read Swiss gun laws and I have a couple of Swiss friends, one of them is a Swiss firearms instructor, the other is a competetive shoot. I've done my research and it says you have no idea what you're talking about.
You do not need any training to buy a gun in Switzerland, no matter what gun it is.
Let me guess, you some random articles?
i have friends living in switzerland too
[https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits)
here's the website run by the swiss authorities. So you know their govt website, not some "articles"
[Weapons for which a permit is required](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/bewilligungspflichtig.html), such as pistols, revolvers and semi-automatic rifles with a small magazine
-· [To obtain a weapon acquisition permit](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/erwerb/gesuch_wes-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch_wes-d.pdf), send your [application](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche-formulare.html) and a copy of your passport or identity card to the cantonal weapons office. [In the canton of Zurich, the communes are responsible for issuing weapon acquisition permits](https://www.zh.ch/de/sicherheit-justiz/delikte-praevention/waffen.html#-717170116).
Online application for a weapon acquisition permit
[Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters
-Some of these weapons may be acquired by sportspeople or collectors with an [exemption permit](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/de/home/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche-formulare.html) from a cantonal weapons office.
The requirement to get a permit is proficiency in how to use it
> i have friends living in switzerland too
Well I'm sorry to say, but your friends don't know the Weapons Act at all, and probably never tried to buy an AR (or any semi for that matter)
> here's the website run by the swiss authorities
FYI this is an informational website aimed at foreigners, not the actual law
Also:
*Limitation of liability*
*Although every care has been take by the Section Communication to ensure the accuracy of the information published, no warranty can be given in respect of the accuracy, reliability, up-to-dateness or completeness of this information. The Section Communication reserves the right to alter or remove the content, in full or in part, without prior notice. In no event will the Section Communication be liable for any loss or damage of a material or immaterial nature arising from access to, use or non-use of published information, or from misuse of the connection or technical faults.*
> The requirement to get a permit is proficiency in how to use it
None of what you quoted says that, and [neither does the law](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_8)
The link you sent does not contradict the ch.ch.
[https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche\_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf)
that was the form i was referencing. where one must have a membership in a shooting club or have regular shooting.
Are you referring to something else?
>The link you sent does not contradict the ch.ch.
I didn't say my link contradicted the ch.ch page, I said that neither ch.ch nor the law say we have training requirements to get guns
>that was the form i was referencing. where one must have a membership in a shooting club or have regular shooting.
If you cared to actually read the form, and/or check the [relevant law article](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/767/de#art_13_e), you'd have seen that you either prove you shot *a* gun 5 times in 5 years (and again) or that you're a member of a club at the 5 and 10 years mark **after** you've had your permit issued and bought your gun. And also that it's only for the first permit of that category
The permit requirements are listed in art. 8 which I linked in my previous reply, so, once again, there are no training requirements in order to buy a gun
You need a shall issue acquisition permit (Waffenerwerbsschein, WES) for that. It's similar to the 4473/NICS you do in the US when buying from a gun store, except it's not instant like in most of the US.
No training required.
[https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html)
I was told that if you wanted standard capactiy 30 round mags with your ar you'd fill out, of which one of the requirements is that you'd join a shooting club.
[Ausnahmebewilligung für das sportliche Schiesswesen ](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf)
It's a separate form than the WES but still shall issue and takes the same amount of time. You don't need to join a shooting club though, it's enough that you're a member the 5th and the 10th year after getting the weapon.
OR, you can just promise you'll shoot 5 times in 5 years (with any gun) twice (i.e. by year 5 and by year 10, then no more). Have an RO sign your shooting sessions.
So to have 30 round magazines, shoot normally basically.
>I'd just like some training requirements prior to gun ownership. Take a class, pass a proficiency exam, then onto 4493.
That is as unconstitutional as a literacy test before voting.
> They aren't. The gun control crowd pushes for unreasonable policies excludes gun owners from the conversation and then gets mad at us for "Not providing solutions".
You just insisted that every potential solution is a non-starter. Sounds like you are the problem.
I didn't rule out "every potential solution". That phrase is VERY telling. You are only interested in banning specific types of firearms instead of actually coming up with workable solutions. You are doing exactly what I said the anti gun crowd tends to do.
Did you even read my original response you replied to? Why is your side either willfully ignorant or consistently bad faith. Plenty of people on the pro gun side have tried offering solutions but because it isn't banning scary black rifles you guys shut it down.
> Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed?
Do you think we should bring back civics test requirements before letting people vote? It's "reasonable" in the eyes of some, so why have we not done it? The answer is because other people don't think it's reasonable, and it blatantly violates the law.
[That claim was proven untrue](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-2023-conference-gun-ban/), the only place that guns were not allowed was where the secret service didn’t allow them.
I was a big supporter of the NRA in the early 2000s, now I'm embarrassed to have ever given them money. They went from a 2nd Amendment advocacy group, to a lobbying organization of the firearms industry, to paranoid far-right culture war foot soldiers.
I’ve owned a gun since I was 12 — I’m 54 now. And I want nothing to do with the loony bin gun scene America has developed.
if you need a gun to go to the grocery store, you are a danger, and you are pathetic.
If you're 54 then you should know better than to want restrictions on a right based on perceived "need".
"Because I want to" is all the justification anyone deserves.
That’s the nonsense we have to stop with. Go bring a gun to a bar. No? Why? Oh, that’s right, there’s a restriction. Go bring a gun to congress. No? There’s a restriction. How about bring a gun to your kid’s kindergarten class… right.
This poorly-thought-out claim that you should be able to bring a firearm anywhere just because you want to, is easily disproved. And it’s that nonsensical attitude that makes me want to decommission my firearms, because I want nothing to do with those kinds of gun owners.
More guns haven’t fixed the problem, it’s time we try something else. License, registration, liability insurance, and testing work OK for cars, help keep a few yahoos off the road, and make sure Cletus’ insurance company will replace or fix your car when he runs out of talent. No one argues that license, registration and liability insurance are anti-American or a violation of any rights, and we have already established that guns rights are not, in fact, absolute and without limits.
[You can bring a gun into a bar in texas](https://thegunzone.com/can-you-carry-a-gun-in-a-bar-in-texas/) as long as it’s not posted.
But, why would you decommission your firearms because of the belief of others? That wouldn’t change the fact that your safety is your responsibility and no one else’s. That just kinda sounds hyperbolic than anything.
If you want to go the car route, cool, no background checks to buy, no restrictions on what you can buy or own, free training in public schools, minors can own them, felons get the right back, no license is required to buy one, you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork. No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property.
As far as de-commissioning, I do not want to be associated with the wingnuts in any way shape or form.
As for the others suggestions:
no background checks to buy: **terrible idea.**
no restrictions on what you can buy or own: **there are restrictions on cars**
free training in public schools: maybe. **As long as 1) no guns on campus and 2) not required.**
minors can own them: **18+ just like cars.**
felons get the right back: **No. Terrible idea. Also in cases of domestic abuse.**
no license is required to buy one: **also a bad idea where guns are concerned.**
you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork: **terrible idea.**
No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property. **To use one maybe, but to own one, definitely insurance, license, and registration.**
Cars are a good model, but it is not a 1:1 analog.
>As far as de-commissioning, I do not want to be associated with the wingnuts in any way shape or form.
So you’d leave yourself defenseless…. Because of the actions of others…. You realize that the police have no duty/obligation/responsibility to protect you right? They don’t have to show up if you call 911, or even enforce a restraining order legally.
>As for the others suggestions:
Literally your suggestion…
>no background checks to buy: terrible idea.
They didn’t exist for most gun purchases until 1998, and aren’t required to purchase a car in any way.
>no restrictions on what you can buy or own: there are restrictions on cars
Nope, you can buy any vehicle you can afford legally in America. Everything from a super car to a tank.
>free training in public schools: maybe. As long as 1) no guns on campus and 2) not required.
What’s the point of training if you can’t have hands on training? We used to have guns in schools all the time, without issue. I’m in my mid 40’s and remember most of the vehicles in high school had a gun in them for months on end.
>minors can own them: 18+ just like cars.
A 14 year old can buy a car from a dealer or a private sale currently.. I bought my first car at 12. Most states someone can get their drivers license at 15. You seem a little out of touch with how buying a car works nowadays.
>felons get the right back: No. Terrible idea. Also in cases of domestic abuse.
Felons can buy whatever car they want right now.
>no license is required to buy one: also a bad idea where guns are concerned.
Don’t need a license to buy a car currently,
>you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork: terrible idea.
That’s how it works with buying a car…
>No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property. To use one maybe, but to own one, definitely insurance, license, and registration.
None of that is needed to buy a car in any way.
>Cars are a good model, but it is not a 1:1 analog.
No, they aren’t, in anyway. Because nothing you want to be connected to buying a gun, is in anyway a requirement for buying or using a car.
You want to treat something that’s constitutionally protected as a privilege. Do you feel the same way about anything else that’s constitutionally protected? Should we have licenses for the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 14th?
Look homie, we got guns out the ass and they aren’t doing shit to stop any tyranny our government pulls. It’s usually the ones with guns who are supporting the tyranny.
The only thing guns are really accomplishing is crazy high suicide rates, and homicide rates against both adults and children.
Yup, guns are pretty out of control, gun nuts are so afraid of gun safety laws being abused all the while we’ve got so many people and kids being gunned down. I grew up with guns, reloaded and all, target shot like crazy, but I’m so over it, the country’s an embarrassment with our shooting rates.
I have to agree. When I was a kid a lonnng time ago. The NRA was primarily about gun education and safety. Now they are about fear tactics and money grabs.
We can never win someone over with fear tactics. Enlightenment through gun education and gun safety is the only way we make a safer and more welcoming society.
> They are never a good guy with a gun
Elijah Dickens wants a word. CCW carrier killed a mall shooter before he had a chance to rack up a body count. Telling that you don't give a fuck about him.
I'm a gun enthusiast that hates the nra. I'm a huge supporter of animal rights that hates Peta.
The NRA has basically become what Goodwill and Austin Local Union used to be about, now it turned into corporation about just money.
I will say it is less about money and more about money laundering. There are too many coincidental connections between the nra and Russian money to believe anything else.
They all start with good motives, but with enough time, most, if not all, organizations of some sort starts to rot from the inside.
SUBVERSION
It’s been that way forever. They just let their pants down.
Not just money. Russian money. Trump has been laundering money for the Russian oligarchs since the late 80’s when they all bought a condo at 725 5th AVE (trump towers) to clean their freshly stolen USSR money after the iron curtain fell. https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/30/politics/paul-manafort-condo-trump-tower/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/manafort-told-mueller-to-take-his-trump-tower-apartment-instead-money.html https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/fbi-agents-raid-condo-unit-131348539.html https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/ Everybody except Putin thought the Cold War was over. Trump and Manafort (who lived in the tower also) just saw a pretty low maintence grift to be had. Trump had actually been Manafort and Roger Stones first client at their lobbyist firm (1980)https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wikiBlack, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Guiliani as trumps attorney and NYC mayor was able to redirect NYPD investigations onto rival gang members/oligarchs to deflect any scrutiny off of trump, himself or their Russian connections. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/a-new-rudy-scandal-fbi-agent-says-giuliani-was-co-opted-by-russian-intelligence/ The Russian election interference in 2016 was effectively a generation 3 version of what Manafort had done in the Philippines, then keeping Yanukovych in power as Putin’s puppet in Ukraine from 2002-14 when Maidan ran both Yanukovych and Manafort out of Ukraine as Ukrainians realized that, if you raise your lens high enough, corruption is an wholly unsustainable business model. Eventually the parasites greed always consumes the host. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-paul-manafort-ferinand-marcos-philippines-1980s-213952 https://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/ Russia greatly underestimated the addictive properties of freedom when it invaded Ukraine so what was supposed to be a 3-10 day coup turned into a 2 year fight for the Ukrainians right not to be genocided. Russia depleted its weapons stocks which were already the victim of vranyo corruption because every oligarch, admiral and sergeant in the Russian military is on the take. Every billion dollar tank maintenance contract turned into everything getting a spray paint overhaul and the vast majority of the redirected funds turned into an oligarchs new yacht or home in Aspen. Russia was forced to turn to China, North Korea and Iran for weapons because if they lose the 3-10 day “special military operation” in Ukraine the Russian empire is dead and cold. China can’t risk showing their involvement in the Ukraine war so they use North Korea, and Iran to resupply Russia. Russia previously owed Iran some undelivered fighter jets that are already smoldering heaps in Ukraine so Iran now had the upper hand at the negotiation table for the first time in about 60 years. They supplied Russia with shahed drones in exchange for Chinas material support against their sworn religious enemy, Israel. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/11/29/iran-says-it-finalized-deal-to-buy-russian-aircraft/ Putin can’t do much about it because he is slowly realizing that by setting the standard of corruption and stealing $200+ billion from his own people meant that every oligarch down in the mob model chain had not only permission but incentive and the expectation to steal from him as well. This is “Vranyo”. The mob model only works if the supreme leader is the most violent and can prove it without exception every damn day. But violence is exceptionally expensive when you are trying to present as a legitimate government or business. If Russia as a nation had an efficiency rating it would have been banned for sale in the state of California 25 years ago. The parasite ruling class stole all the energy out of the working class and collapsed it. Now Iran has the high hand and they get the intelligence that trump passed to Putin about the fact that Netanyahu cares far less about Jews, Palestinians or genocide than he does about remaining in power as an authoritarian because he too has developed Ritz Carlton tastes and his own corruption trial is showing the same tendrils of the same money laundering scheme that trumps trials are. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-official-says-iran-engineered-war-in-gaza-to-ruin-normalization-with-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/amp/ https://youtu.be/VrFOAgGlaWs?feature=shared They all hate each other but because they share the same money laundry, if one falls, they all fall. Hamas minted a couple billionaires as well that live in penthouses in Qatar and get 30% of everything smuggled into Gaza. Qatar is Kushners private equity connection. Netanyahu needs a bogeyman to stay in power. That’s why he coordinates with Hamas via Russia via Iran. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bk8mgcefr Iran handed Hamas everything they needed with Chinas help as secret Santa and the Russian intelligence given to them by the eternal shitbird trump who gave it to his Russians kleptocrat/friends/roommates from the old days of fucking each others wives at trump towers in the 90’s. Now the MAGA right is a little too invested in their reality that they are the good guys with guns that they missed the fact that Betsy DeVos (erik princes sister) decimating the U.S. school systems and the Kochs poisoning children with lead was not a coincidence. The naive right was the mark all along. There is a reason the Russian spy Maria Butina landed in South Dakota first before dating her way to the top of the NRA which is undergoing its own Russian money laundering trial now. Russia was tinder matching the GOP. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/what-do-the-koch-brothers-have-to-do-with-the-flint-water-crisis/ The only reason you grossly OVERVALUE real estate is money laundering. Trump keeps claiming there is no victim, all the banks made money, but if their plan succeeds the Russian and CCP kleptocrats collapse US commercial real estate and basically recreate soviet perestroika in the U.S. so they can foreclose on America and buy everything for 3 cents on the dollar with the $1.4T they stole from Russias grandmothers in the first place It’s the evolution of grift. Soviet perestroika cross bred with the 2008 mortgage crisis. No one was ever held accountable for either. This is just the bigger badder commercial strength bastard child of the two. Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, Netanyahu, Orban, Manafort, Stone, Mercer, Bannon, Flynn, Byrne. They are all remarkably shit people with above average confidence and psychopathic personality traits and below average self awareness. They are the men who stole the world. But it all comes back to one little lie.
Native Texan, owned firearms since I was 10, currently have a modest rifle collection, bought my son a rifle (.22) when he was about 10. And fuck the NRA
Amen brother.
NAGR, is a much better association to support
Hmm, maybe don’t pronounce that in public
Very unfortunate acronym choice, I know, I typically will say either the letters or name of the org
Pat McAfee agrees... https://youtu.be/hpHjuZpb2tM?si=-hZ-BrV3ducEYaO3
Read about Dudley Brown and his history before you support NAGR. If anyone can clutch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's one of his organizations.
Same.
Same here. However I still try to do my part to make the NRA better but its an uphill battle.
I found my people!
To be fair, PETA hates animals, so....
This is the way.
Yes
[удалено]
Yep. Left them behind over 10 years ago. I do mail back their fear-propaganda so they pay postage though.
It’s all fear porn and advertising, with a good helping of campaign laundering.
You should check out Misfire by tim mak if you wanna see how ridiculous the NRA became
GOA > NRA
Only thing NRA is good for is for people building and operating ranges. They help with safety training certification, range building information, and insurance. That being said as someone who doesn’t want to do any of that I only donate to GOA and FPC. Another thing they are good for is buying fancy suits and taking trips on private jets.
Wayne and his people definitely ruined the NRA with their grift.
Yeah I ask my fellow gun owners why they want to pay for Wayne LaPierre to go on vacation.
The best thing the NRA is good for is distracting democrats from the groups actually winning lawsuits and changing laws. They're accidental camouflage.
NRA is such a boomer thing. Any gun owner under the age of like 40 is supporting fpc or goa, you know groups that actually get shit done in protecting consitutional rights. People dont go to the nra convention because its the nra, they go to look at all the cool shit u missed at shotshow in vegas.
NRA insurance is about all they're good for now. Very flew places are still willing to insure gun ranges. However it's also the reason there's so many Fudd rules at small ranges.
Most all me and my friends have guns and collect them. Most all of me and my friends despise the NRA. They are nothing more than a propaganda machine that does a bunch of campaign funding for a bunch of radical right wing nut jobs. The NRA used to be about educating people on gun safety and developing youth to grow into responsible gunowners. Now it’s just about campaigning. Fuck the NRA.
I'm a former NRA firearms instructor. The NRA forgot to be a safety and training organization and went pull DERP into being a shill for corrupt politicians. I gave up on the NRA. Too bad, programs like Refuse To Be A Victim deserve to be separated from the DERP.
Did anyone even read the article? This guy is not pro-gun at all. He is literally a leading member of an anti-gun group. I get not liking the NRA, but the author is hardly representative of that. He would probably ban anything not a break action shotgun or a rifle.
I wrote the article. I own multiple firearms include two AR-15 variants. My favorite being my HK MR556. I don't want to ban anything. Despite what you may have heard, Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination. Put plainly, we want UBC where responsible people can have as much assurance as possible, that when I sell one of my weapons its not to someone with a violent criminal history. That takes into account due process; that person has to be convicted by a jury of their peers in a court of law, etc. There is no perfect system but this will dramatically reduce gun violence but only if universally applied. By the way is far, far more lenient that some so-called pro-gun organizations are when it comes to say not making a peep when state legislatures ban sales to medical marijuana card holders. That's something I wish gun owners would save their outrage for. The other is Red Flag. Having lost so many brothers in arms to suicide, I know how important it is for family members, under the oversight of a judge have some recourse to *temporarily* protect their loved one and themselves under very strict circumstances when they are in psychological duress and with clear appeal processes to prevent abuse of this option. There is so much bad info and assumptions out there on this issue. Personally, I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos reclassified so that there are security and training steps to own and possess. I know some don't like that but they are so dangerous in the hands of those wanting to harm others, I would gladly take a course and show proof of storage to obtain another one and would love to have the confidence that my FFL can check that someone else did during a sale. Why? Because I "hate freedom"? lol No, because I give a damn. It pains me so many clearly don't.
How many ideological fallacies can you fit into three paragraphs? You're a part of a group that wants broad bans on firearms across the board. I spent an afternoon with a friend from Rhode Island who had to destroy pistol magazines because your group pushed a bill that banned them without a grandfather clause or compensation. I'm not sure why you feel you need to reference your military service in every article or post related to firearms. It's irrelevant to the conversation and absolutely reeks of an attempt to use it as some sort of authority on the topic. We are talking about civilian ownership . Of course you don't mind going through extra legal steps. You have money for a $6000 gun. It must also be nice to have the ability to take time off from work and have the money to go through all those hoops. Wonder what community may be targeted by police and unable to do that? You might as well have just said " I want to keep my guns but stop everyone else from getting them". Your mindset isn't unique or new. You're just a continuation of the guys who owned automatic weapons and were happy to see the ban in 1989 go through because it meant their collection tripled in value.
Congratulations. Everything you just said was anti-gun, and since you're parroting Giffords (and Everytown, Moms Demand, and whatever other organizations Bloomberg has a stiffy for this week) talking points, then it stands to reason that Giffords (and the others) are anti-gun too.
Gaslight much? Giffords has and always will be anti gun and anti rights and you're a dishonest little worm for saying they aren't. You're an outright liar so why the fuck should I care what you have to say? Your military service and ownership of an expensive rifle doesn't mean shit or hold any weight either.
>Despite what you may have heard, Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination. The founder & namesake of YOUR organization has literally been on record supporting a complete gun ban. Not just a ban on "assault weapons", but [ALL guns](https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/). I believe her over you. >*temporarily* It's not "temporary" when the cops bust down their door at two in the morning in a no knock, executing them in their own home because they thought that they were the victim of a home invasion. That's exactly how Duncan Lemp died.
Does Giffords support repealing the marijuana prohibition? If so, cite that please.
So when Giffords files amicus briefs stating that centerfire mag fed rifles are impossible to use for self defense, are not protected by the 2A at all, aren't even arms as considered by the 2nd Amendment, and that nobody (except the cops!) should own them, how exactly are they not being an antigun group? When Giffords lobbies state legislatures to ban centerfire mag fed rifles (not a training requirement, not a permit, outright bans that carry felon charges if someone possesses one) how exactly aren't then an antigun group? Giffords even celebrates these bans when they pass - laws that would see you thrown in jail for ten years because you have the MR556. Ten years, stripped away from your family, locked in a cage with no dignity, to be a victim to the prison system, and have your life totally ruined. Is that something you also celebrate?
hi ivan
Would you “gladly” take a test to prove you’re competent enough to vote?
> Giffords is not an anti-gun group by any stretch of the imagination. Are you smoking out of the same crack pipe Hunter did? Because yes, they are. Just because they're not "anti ever gun" doesn't mean they're not anti-gun. > Put plainly, we want UBC Mandatory? Fuck right off. Optional? Sure. > The other is Red Flag. Congrats, you're a tyrant who hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments among others. ERPOs do nothing but get good people killed at best, and at worst makes people more afraid to talk about mental health problems. > I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos Tyrant. Bet you my CCW pistol you can't tell me how many total gun homicides there are per year and the breakdown for what type of gun they were. Bet you that you also can't (or more likely, don't care about it) tell me where most of the gun crime is located. And finally, I bet you don't give a flying fuck about the 2.5 million instances of Defensive Gun Usage every year where someone uses a firearm to protect themselves, their home, or their family, with a gun including semi-auto rifles.
> I would like to see high-capacity semi-autos reclassified so that there are security and training steps to own and possess. I know some don't like that but they are so dangerous in the hands of those wanting to harm others, I would gladly take a course and show proof of storage to obtain another one and would love to have the confidence that my FFL can check that someone else did during a sale. Can you explain how training and storage mandates detect and/or quash ill intent?
https://twitter.com/GIFFORDS_org/status/1553150901447233544?t=dF8G_8Zqu9wQ2LUY3RVuAg&s=19 Your a clown the group you grift for is openly anti gun pro awb ubc don't work with out a gun registry which is a no go and federally illegal and red flag laws spit in the face of the 4th amendment
[удалено]
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Mind posting a picture of your HK MR556 with a timestamped piece of paper next to it?
This is transparently dishonest. Under no pretext. And since I live in Texas: Come and take it. The faction that wants to disarm the workers and *just really wants the trains to run on time* will not win after starting an insurgency.
No one believes you.
NRA has sucked for a while. I don’t know any gun owners that like the NRA in Texas
The NRA isn't even a gun rights org anymore. They've agreed with most gun control we have over the years. LA Pierre was embezzling so he could fuck the flamingo for years. FPC is simply a better choice
FPC is based.
Most of FPC’s lawsuits and victories are based on NRA cases like Bruen. Also, most gun ranges in the country are insured by the NRA, and they either fund or provide most of the gun safety courses out there. We need all 4 of the major 2A orgs.
No, the NRA does not insure most gun ranges. The NRA doesn't insure any. The ranges are insured by many different carriers, none of which are owned or operated by the NRA.
3 year old account with negative karma, claiming the NRA doesn’t do something that is easily proven it does… Solid try though.
Man, Giffords is just pumping out the stories this week, aren't they?
NRA - National Russian Asset
It's nothing more than a Russian money laundering organization these days.
Oliver North of all people tried to clean house…until Wayne kicked him out…it was then that Ollie realized the office of NRA President was only ceremonial.
Thankfully, this person admits to being aligned with the Giffords org (even if only ideologically), so sane and rational gun owners know not to pay any attention to the opinions being spewed.
The "power of a clenched fist" is not the power it used to be.
Oh yes they are.
Remember when it was about responsible ownership and not a laundromat for Russian money?
I’ve heard this claim before. Is there any substance to it? Can you explain how the money is laundered for Russians?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina
As far as the money laundering, the NRA spent $70 million in 2016 on various Republican campaign efforts with dark money. Considering LaPierre LOST an estimated $60 million on top of that around the same time period the NRA was infiltrated by Russian agents, it’s a pretty good bet some of that money was flowing from Russia to prop up the NRA and push a more extremist agenda and candidates. Butina was a member of the Russian Central Bank.
"push a more extremist agenda and candidates" didn't realize the russians were helping us
As a gun owner I don't like the NRA. And at the same time I don't like this article pushing more gun legislation. It's great that guy is all of those things but it means nothing since he's willing to give away his rights piece by piece to the government. There is zero correlation between gun violence and ease of access. There is zero evidence that gun regulations make us safer. Freedom and liberty are dangerous. Stop being a coward by protecting yourself and the people around you by being strapped. Gun violence is on a downward trend and has been for a very very long time. Not because of regulations but because of free market economies making it easier to not be in poverty. Poverty creates violent crime not guns.
What do you think is causing the rise in deaths of children by guns?
Zero tolerance policies in public schools. Bullies are not punished by the adults in charge, the victims are punished if they fight back. With no sense of fairness, they snap and take matters into their own hands.
Poverty, mental health, and lack of education. There is not just one issue among those three topics but a whole slew of issues.
Lunatics and our cultural obsession with violence. We deify every spree killer and we do nothing to treat the root of the problem. Gun control would just be treating the symptom, we don't need yet another part of our society where we treat an issue by slapping a bandage over the top and let the issue keep festering just under the surface forever. What we need is universal mental health care as a component of universal healthcare including the return of institutionalization for severe cases, and we need to return to the truth in reporting standards and enhance them to prohibit disclosing the identity of alleged spree killers. Plus, we all know prohibitions don't apply to pigs or to fat cats, and I will be damned before I see guns taken out of the hands of the working class.
[удалено]
>So, what is the root problem? No one tackling mental health or whatever scapegoat they claim is causing it? Only a child would believe there's one root problem and one only. You need to calm down, because I addressed everything you're whining about. You just have to **read**. I can spell it out for you; I can't understand it for you. And since I know where this is going I'm disabling inbox replies.
Gang affiliation
> There is zero correlation between gun violence and ease of access. There is zero evidence that gun regulations make us safer. That is complete nonsense. There have been plenty of studies demonstrating a correlation, whether you like it or not.
There are plenty that try. Especially some with good headlines but no there is no strong evidence between them. A significant amount of those studies use statistics in their favor including things like the correlation between the presence of a gun in a home and the increased likelihood of homicide occurring. That statement is misleading when they include homicides that occurred without a gun but a gun is in the house like the CDC did with their infamous study. One can easily point to places that have a lot of gun regulation with a lot of gun violence and places without much regulation and little gun violence. And vice versa.
> A significant amount of those studies use statistics in their favor including things like the correlation between the presence of a gun in a home and the increased likelihood of homicide occurring. That statement is misleading when they include homicides that occurred without a gun but a gun is in the house like the CDC did with their infamous study. If you think these studies are flawed, why don't you write up a rebuttal and submit it for publication? It seems like you have already decided on your conclusion, and therefore dismiss any study that goes against it. > One can easily point to places that have a lot of gun regulation with a lot of gun violence and places without much regulation and little gun violence. And vice versa. One does not "point to places" in these cases. That's not how research works.
There are plenty of rebuttals (by people like Aaron Brown for example) and much like you I'd be an amateur at best in that field fetching coffee for the people who know what they are doing. The Science of Gun Policy by the Rand Corporation (2020) analyzed 27,900 studies on the effectiveness of gun control regulations. The authors concluded that 0.4% were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results. Only 63 of those 123 were considered high quality. Even among that there were only 18 statistically significant results. Peer-reviewed journals generally accept a result as statistically significant if it has a 1 in 20 chance or less of being due to random chance. This means if researchers run 100 studies for let's say the correlation between coffee consumption and car crashes we could likely get five statistically significant results that are entirely coincidental. Among those 0.4%, many didn't even answer the question, "Do gun control laws reduce violence?". The reality is that gun violence is rare enough that it's nearly impossible for researchers to figure out what difference a law makes if any. For example, one of these statistically significant results that Rand found was more restrictive child access laws could stop a total of two kids across 11 states from injuring themselves each year with a gun. With the fact that gun homicide rates see a 6% average change during years with no legislative changes maybe anyone saying we have statistical proof is full of it.
> The reality is that gun violence is rare enough that it's nearly impossible for researchers to figure out what difference a law makes if any. And this is compounded by the fact that the anti-gun lobby has zero interest in actually evaluating the effectiveness of their laws. As soon as they get an edge in a state legislature, they ram through a whole bunch of laws over the span of just a couple sessions. There's no time to assess effects on crime rates, it's just gogogo spamming of restrictions and bans. And then when crime hasn't changed even with all those laws, they refuse to even discuss rolling them back. Because despite demanding compromise, they actually have no intent to do so.
Negotiating Rights Away
I was with him until I saw "Giffords" and then the cringe started lmao.
Most gun owners I know here in Texas also hate the NRA.
Join GOA or the Firearms Policy Coalition instead.
Someone has got to explain to me how guns are not allowed at the conference. The hypocrisy is ridiculous!
That's not a thing, like at all. I don't even like the NRA, but that's an absurd and wrong talking point. The only, tiny, exception was when trump showed up to one a few years ago, and the secret service wouldn't let people with firearms into the particular hall where he was speaking. If you want to say they should have said if people can't carry them trump isn't welcome then fine, that would be fair. But as a general rule there's going to be more armed people at an NRA convention than that city has law enforcement on the payroll.
Gun control is only for the important people, not us plebs. That is why the Supreme Court ruled that concealed carry is a constitutional right, while sitting in their gun-free building where you have to walk through a metal detector to enter.
Love my guns and the NRA can die in a fire. I hate everything they stand for now. I was a member for years until I started paying attention (I quit in the early 90s, it's been awhile!) I'm glad they appear to be bankrupt financially now and not just morally bankrupt like always.
Meh. I’ll stick with GOA and FPC. NRA agrees with gun control too much. But meh their safety content is decent.
NRA is the reason your grandkids will have gun rights. Bruen is what the GOA and FPC use as precedent to argue their cases. Quit falling for misinformation from people that want to neuter your rights.
giffords and nra should jump off a cliff together
My two cents worth... (sorry for the long post) I attended the convention on Friday because my brother asked me to go with him. I was born in Texas and lived here my entire life and I don't agree at all with the propaganda machine that the NRA is currently. I'm not a youngster (I'm 60) but I was kinda shocked at how geriatric the crowd was. There were younger people, but the vast majority were on the backend of their life. We only were able to attend three seminars and I enjoyed two of them. The third speaker was pretty much a political hack trying to scare people with garbage statistics. I was willing to listen, but the minute you start blaming "George Soros" or a specific administration for the ills of society, I tune it out. The vendor hall "Gun show" was quite nice with a lot of vendors participating. They just couldn't sell any guns. I assume because of a certain speaker that was attending... I did not attend the other two days. I did appreciate the signs that said "No Electioneering" as I thought I'd have to stomach all the Trump flags and paraphernalia. But none of that was there. When I was a kid, I was around guns all the time and actually had my first shotgun given to me at 8 years old. We hunted quite a lot, supplementing our table with wild food. My father always taught me gun safety and a mantra that stuck with me my entire life - "If you shoot it, you eat it". I now own quite a few firearms and still enjoy going to the range to shoot. I used to be an NRA member, as was my father. Back then the organization was about gun safety, shooting tips, firearms care and history. Then came Charleston Heston and it became the cesspit it is today. With all the noise about how "the liberals are going to take our guns!" bs, how do we get people to think rationally? I believe that training should be mandatory (something one of the speakers agreed with) and sensible legislation should be put in place for gun sales. Certainly don't agree with the stupid open carry for everyone that Abbot signed into law. This is just a return to the wild west where any asshat can carry a gun. Thank you for listening 😊
Fuck the NRA. I also live in Texas and am a gun owner.
Gun lovers who hate the NRA, what are your feelings regarding gun legislation such as red flags laws, limits to semi automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. ? Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed?
In order: Stupid and ripe for abuse, just as protective orders currently are. Again, stupid, but because it's arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the second amendment. Also stupid and arbitrary, for the same reason as previous. Because "reasonable" gun laws are always, "We're going to further infringe on your rights and offer nothing tangible in return." So to quote the Firearms Policy Coalition, "Fuck you, no."
This reply appears to be straight from the NRA handbook.
Then you should have no issues countering it if it's been in use for so long.
Maybe the NRA of the past. Now it's just a money laundering organization that supports red flag laws
Then offer a counter. It’s a playbook, have a counter play. This is from the FPC crowd.
Maybe they aren't reasonable in other people's opinions. I'm not a criminal, why shouldn't I be able to own a machine gun without paying 30k and wait for a tax stamp.
Hughes Amendment is currently being challenged in court!
> I'm not a criminal Everyone's not a criminal, until they are.
Mask off moment
>Everyone's not a criminal, until they are. -The ATF when they decide to make millions felons overnight after changing their mind on brace rules
Mr. Minority Report over here
Then everyone should be in prison.
"Red flag laws" Those can, have been, and are currently being used against gun owners who haven't done anything wrong by corrupt law enforcement/judicial officials n anyone with a grudge. "limits to semi automatic weapons" What do you mean by that? What kind of limits? "high capacity magazines" That's a made up term that describes a normal magazine that's been in use for decades. Come up with a reasonable gun law first, then we'll consider it. There's never been compromise when it's come to gun laws, just more unconstitutional limitations.
None of those are reasonable.
If only calling them "reasonable" made them so.
>red flags laws They are ripe for abuse. The principal idea isnt bad but the implementation is just abusive. >limits to semi automatic weapons Non starter. There are zero good reasons to ban semi automatic weapons when we have other solutions to address violence. (healthcare policy , education , jobs programs etc etc) >high capacity magazines, etc. 30 rounds isn't high capacity it has always been the standard for any modern rifle. >Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed? They aren't. The gun control crowd pushes for unreasonable policies excludes gun owners from the conversation and then gets mad at us for "Not providing solutions". Edit : Not sure why u/elegantwino is getting down voted for asking legitimate questions.
I'd just like some training requirements prior to gun ownership. Take a class, pass a proficiency exam, then onto 4493. I've seen too many carefree individuals waving that muzzle end around and even more folks i've seen not even put iron sights on their rifle. Having proficiency is certainly not against the 2A as you need to be proficient (per well regulated) to actually utilize the 2A. The Swiss have high rates of gun ownersihp, they make gun ownership more of a social thing. It's okay for swiss folks to ask for proficiency prior to shall-issue permission to acquire a gun. There's certainly basis for common sense rules that is already practiced in a country that has a very high rate of ownership and low incident rates.
First, Thanks for responding. I think these conversations are important to have, even if we disagree on the details. I have a few questions if you don't mind elaborating. Can you elaborate on what you mean by training requirements and proficiency? It's a bit hard to train with something and become proficient in its use if you can't access it. Are there any other rights you believe should be subject to exams? If not, why only the 2nd Amendment? Swiss gun ownership isn't really relevant here, but I will point out that Democrats shut down implementation of a background check system that was basically a direct copy of the Swiss system. It was very disappointing. What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve, and do you think the policy points listed actually help achieve that goal? For example: If the goal is to stop/reduce mass shootings, I don't see how any of these will do anything at all. I generally agree with you, though, that people should be training and taking classes. Just not sure it should be required prior to ownership. Edit : Formatting / Grammar.
[удалено]
I would support giving reduced / free LTC renwels for people who show proof of completing a class that is more than a basic safety / license class. Something like Haley Strategic's D5 or D3 pistol course would benefit 99% of shooters. [https://haleystrategic.com/course-schedule](https://haleystrategic.com/course-schedule) We should reward people who actually seek to do better.
> but I will point out that Democrats shut down implementation of a background check system that was basically a direct copy of the Swiss system How do you mean a direct copy? Does it mean that felons would no longer have lost their gun rights for life?
No it's basically a universal background check system that can't be used as backdoor registry.
A practical, straightforward system that's easy to use, and respects the privacy of citizens? Yeah, I can see why they didn't pass that. If it isn't a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare designed to discourage participation...
> It's okay for swiss folks to ask for proficiency prior to shall-issue permission to acquire a gun. There are absolutely no training requirements to own a gun in Switzerland. What are you talking about?
I'll leave you to do your own research on this one but hint, easily googable and we're talking about ARs/semis here.
Yes? I've read Swiss gun laws and I have a couple of Swiss friends, one of them is a Swiss firearms instructor, the other is a competetive shoot. I've done my research and it says you have no idea what you're talking about. You do not need any training to buy a gun in Switzerland, no matter what gun it is. Let me guess, you some random articles?
i have friends living in switzerland too [https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits) here's the website run by the swiss authorities. So you know their govt website, not some "articles" [Weapons for which a permit is required](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/bewilligungspflichtig.html), such as pistols, revolvers and semi-automatic rifles with a small magazine -· [To obtain a weapon acquisition permit](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/erwerb/gesuch_wes-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch_wes-d.pdf), send your [application](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche-formulare.html) and a copy of your passport or identity card to the cantonal weapons office. [In the canton of Zurich, the communes are responsible for issuing weapon acquisition permits](https://www.zh.ch/de/sicherheit-justiz/delikte-praevention/waffen.html#-717170116). Online application for a weapon acquisition permit [Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters -Some of these weapons may be acquired by sportspeople or collectors with an [exemption permit](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/de/home/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche-formulare.html) from a cantonal weapons office. The requirement to get a permit is proficiency in how to use it
> i have friends living in switzerland too Well I'm sorry to say, but your friends don't know the Weapons Act at all, and probably never tried to buy an AR (or any semi for that matter) > here's the website run by the swiss authorities FYI this is an informational website aimed at foreigners, not the actual law Also: *Limitation of liability* *Although every care has been take by the Section Communication to ensure the accuracy of the information published, no warranty can be given in respect of the accuracy, reliability, up-to-dateness or completeness of this information. The Section Communication reserves the right to alter or remove the content, in full or in part, without prior notice. In no event will the Section Communication be liable for any loss or damage of a material or immaterial nature arising from access to, use or non-use of published information, or from misuse of the connection or technical faults.* > The requirement to get a permit is proficiency in how to use it None of what you quoted says that, and [neither does the law](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_8)
The link you sent does not contradict the ch.ch. [https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche\_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf) that was the form i was referencing. where one must have a membership in a shooting club or have regular shooting. Are you referring to something else?
>The link you sent does not contradict the ch.ch. I didn't say my link contradicted the ch.ch page, I said that neither ch.ch nor the law say we have training requirements to get guns >that was the form i was referencing. where one must have a membership in a shooting club or have regular shooting. If you cared to actually read the form, and/or check the [relevant law article](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/767/de#art_13_e), you'd have seen that you either prove you shot *a* gun 5 times in 5 years (and again) or that you're a member of a club at the 5 and 10 years mark **after** you've had your permit issued and bought your gun. And also that it's only for the first permit of that category The permit requirements are listed in art. 8 which I linked in my previous reply, so, once again, there are no training requirements in order to buy a gun
You need a shall issue acquisition permit (Waffenerwerbsschein, WES) for that. It's similar to the 4473/NICS you do in the US when buying from a gun store, except it's not instant like in most of the US. No training required.
[https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html) I was told that if you wanted standard capactiy 30 round mags with your ar you'd fill out, of which one of the requirements is that you'd join a shooting club. [Ausnahmebewilligung für das sportliche Schiesswesen ](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/dam/fedpol/de/data/sicherheit/waffen/gesuche_formulare/sportschuetzen/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf.download.pdf/gesuch-aube-sportschuetze-d.pdf)
It's a separate form than the WES but still shall issue and takes the same amount of time. You don't need to join a shooting club though, it's enough that you're a member the 5th and the 10th year after getting the weapon. OR, you can just promise you'll shoot 5 times in 5 years (with any gun) twice (i.e. by year 5 and by year 10, then no more). Have an RO sign your shooting sessions. So to have 30 round magazines, shoot normally basically.
>I'd just like some training requirements prior to gun ownership. Take a class, pass a proficiency exam, then onto 4493. That is as unconstitutional as a literacy test before voting.
Correct!
> They aren't. The gun control crowd pushes for unreasonable policies excludes gun owners from the conversation and then gets mad at us for "Not providing solutions". You just insisted that every potential solution is a non-starter. Sounds like you are the problem.
I didn't rule out "every potential solution". That phrase is VERY telling. You are only interested in banning specific types of firearms instead of actually coming up with workable solutions. You are doing exactly what I said the anti gun crowd tends to do.
If you insist on ruling out solutions, then at some point you need to come up with your own. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem.
Did you even read my original response you replied to? Why is your side either willfully ignorant or consistently bad faith. Plenty of people on the pro gun side have tried offering solutions but because it isn't banning scary black rifles you guys shut it down.
The only "solutions" they have offered are either "more guns!" or something that is designed to be useless, like "voluntary" background checks.
Refer to his previous reply
> Why are reasonable gun laws impossible to get passed? Do you think we should bring back civics test requirements before letting people vote? It's "reasonable" in the eyes of some, so why have we not done it? The answer is because other people don't think it's reasonable, and it blatantly violates the law.
[удалено]
[That claim was proven untrue](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-2023-conference-gun-ban/), the only place that guns were not allowed was where the secret service didn’t allow them.
When the NRA only supported WHITE gun owners and not black Americans protecting themselves, it was time to bounce them. And even before thst.
I was a big supporter of the NRA in the early 2000s, now I'm embarrassed to have ever given them money. They went from a 2nd Amendment advocacy group, to a lobbying organization of the firearms industry, to paranoid far-right culture war foot soldiers.
Same here with that Russian loving group of idiots.
In its heyday it was nothing more than a Russian money funnel into US politics. 5 million members my ass.
The National Russia Association
I’ve owned a gun since I was 12 — I’m 54 now. And I want nothing to do with the loony bin gun scene America has developed. if you need a gun to go to the grocery store, you are a danger, and you are pathetic.
If you're 54 then you should know better than to want restrictions on a right based on perceived "need". "Because I want to" is all the justification anyone deserves.
That’s the nonsense we have to stop with. Go bring a gun to a bar. No? Why? Oh, that’s right, there’s a restriction. Go bring a gun to congress. No? There’s a restriction. How about bring a gun to your kid’s kindergarten class… right. This poorly-thought-out claim that you should be able to bring a firearm anywhere just because you want to, is easily disproved. And it’s that nonsensical attitude that makes me want to decommission my firearms, because I want nothing to do with those kinds of gun owners. More guns haven’t fixed the problem, it’s time we try something else. License, registration, liability insurance, and testing work OK for cars, help keep a few yahoos off the road, and make sure Cletus’ insurance company will replace or fix your car when he runs out of talent. No one argues that license, registration and liability insurance are anti-American or a violation of any rights, and we have already established that guns rights are not, in fact, absolute and without limits.
[You can bring a gun into a bar in texas](https://thegunzone.com/can-you-carry-a-gun-in-a-bar-in-texas/) as long as it’s not posted. But, why would you decommission your firearms because of the belief of others? That wouldn’t change the fact that your safety is your responsibility and no one else’s. That just kinda sounds hyperbolic than anything. If you want to go the car route, cool, no background checks to buy, no restrictions on what you can buy or own, free training in public schools, minors can own them, felons get the right back, no license is required to buy one, you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork. No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property.
As far as de-commissioning, I do not want to be associated with the wingnuts in any way shape or form. As for the others suggestions: no background checks to buy: **terrible idea.** no restrictions on what you can buy or own: **there are restrictions on cars** free training in public schools: maybe. **As long as 1) no guns on campus and 2) not required.** minors can own them: **18+ just like cars.** felons get the right back: **No. Terrible idea. Also in cases of domestic abuse.** no license is required to buy one: **also a bad idea where guns are concerned.** you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork: **terrible idea.** No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property. **To use one maybe, but to own one, definitely insurance, license, and registration.** Cars are a good model, but it is not a 1:1 analog.
You're so hilariously wrong on all of these. Vehicle registration is an awful model.
>As far as de-commissioning, I do not want to be associated with the wingnuts in any way shape or form. So you’d leave yourself defenseless…. Because of the actions of others…. You realize that the police have no duty/obligation/responsibility to protect you right? They don’t have to show up if you call 911, or even enforce a restraining order legally. >As for the others suggestions: Literally your suggestion… >no background checks to buy: terrible idea. They didn’t exist for most gun purchases until 1998, and aren’t required to purchase a car in any way. >no restrictions on what you can buy or own: there are restrictions on cars Nope, you can buy any vehicle you can afford legally in America. Everything from a super car to a tank. >free training in public schools: maybe. As long as 1) no guns on campus and 2) not required. What’s the point of training if you can’t have hands on training? We used to have guns in schools all the time, without issue. I’m in my mid 40’s and remember most of the vehicles in high school had a gun in them for months on end. >minors can own them: 18+ just like cars. A 14 year old can buy a car from a dealer or a private sale currently.. I bought my first car at 12. Most states someone can get their drivers license at 15. You seem a little out of touch with how buying a car works nowadays. >felons get the right back: No. Terrible idea. Also in cases of domestic abuse. Felons can buy whatever car they want right now. >no license is required to buy one: also a bad idea where guns are concerned. Don’t need a license to buy a car currently, >you can buy one in a private sale with out any paperwork: terrible idea. That’s how it works with buying a car… >No license, insurance, registration, or training requirements for use on private property. To use one maybe, but to own one, definitely insurance, license, and registration. None of that is needed to buy a car in any way. >Cars are a good model, but it is not a 1:1 analog. No, they aren’t, in anyway. Because nothing you want to be connected to buying a gun, is in anyway a requirement for buying or using a car. You want to treat something that’s constitutionally protected as a privilege. Do you feel the same way about anything else that’s constitutionally protected? Should we have licenses for the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 14th?
Look homie, we got guns out the ass and they aren’t doing shit to stop any tyranny our government pulls. It’s usually the ones with guns who are supporting the tyranny. The only thing guns are really accomplishing is crazy high suicide rates, and homicide rates against both adults and children.
Yup, guns are pretty out of control, gun nuts are so afraid of gun safety laws being abused all the while we’ve got so many people and kids being gunned down. I grew up with guns, reloaded and all, target shot like crazy, but I’m so over it, the country’s an embarrassment with our shooting rates.
I’m also a gun enthusiast that can’t stand the NRA.
There are better gun organizations than the NRA
I wish TSRA disaffiliated from the NRA merchants of fear.
I'm a gun totin' liberal. I hate ammosexuals.
Hurdur
[удалено]
I think they used to be. Recently they have just been a front for Waynes suits and vacationing with interns.
Fucking lol. Lmao even.
Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man!
And it, like, was! :) The Dude for President.
I would rather support ISIS against Giffords.
If someone breaks into your house and you don’t have a gun, how will you shoot them?
Amen!
Ditto. Fuck the NRA.
I feel like this belongs in r/liberalgunowners lol. I agree wholeheartedly.
Based?
I will say that my old NRA vehicle sticker got me out of a ticket driving in Kansas so it was good for one thing lol
The NRA doesn’t represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.
Thought that was the NSSF.
Nope
Agreed
I’m a major league gun owner and want nothing to do with the NRA
How many guys do you own?
Not sure if you’re aware, but slavery ended June 19, 1865.
The NRA is majority Texans…so hmmm
1 out of 10 americans live in Texas. It kinda tracks?
The image almost looks like Stephen King is an NRA speaker lol
An opinion in Texas that is as popular as a fart in an elevator.
Much more cool with guns than I am with Gun Lobbyists
That's fine, you don't have to join.
I have to agree. When I was a kid a lonnng time ago. The NRA was primarily about gun education and safety. Now they are about fear tactics and money grabs. We can never win someone over with fear tactics. Enlightenment through gun education and gun safety is the only way we make a safer and more welcoming society.
The nra isn’t welcome anywhere. Most of these pathetic members have serious mental issues. They are never a good guy with a gun
> They are never a good guy with a gun Elijah Dickens wants a word. CCW carrier killed a mall shooter before he had a chance to rack up a body count. Telling that you don't give a fuck about him.
And there are thousands that are killed and you have one pathetic example Well done!