Should the NRA be banned?

I realize that it is people that kill and that it is not guns that kill, but if the guns weren't so easy to buy one way or the other, there wouldn't be so many casualties in the streets. I was watching the news, and I heard that a little 7 or 8 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet to the head, leaving her brain dead. I sat there thinking how much pain her parents and family members were going through because someone had easy access to a firearm.

When does the government say enough is enough, and pull the NRA down like an outdated poster? The 2nd Amendment does not really fit in society today, when we have more Police officers than when this near ancient law was passed. I also read that there were more deaths over the past 20 or so years, due to gun violence on the streets of America, than deaths in all of the wars since WW1. I may be wrong about the dates, but it went something like that, which in the end left me a little surprised, because this is something that I would have never guessed.

So what do you think? Should the 2nd Amendment be abolished? Should it be the responsibility of other countries to help solve this dilemma like the USA always does when they stick their noses in the affairs of other countries, or what? Something must clearly be done about this, because its far past the point that someone should stand the hell up, and declare that this is a crisis situation.

Opinions?

How about: everyone who thinks they have a "God-given right" to battlefield-calibre ordnance should be shot and killed when and where they least expect it. Or maybe just their children. Oh the irony.

OR

Let's pick a number of diverse places around the country and allow everyone to be armed, everywhere: schools, bars, churches, etc. Then debate will no longer be necessary. We will know, once and for all, if arming everyone ensures maximum safety or maximum carnage.

Originally posted by Mindship
How about: everyone who thinks they have a "God-given right" to battlefield-calibre ordnance should be shot and killed when and where they least expect it. Or maybe just their children. Oh the irony.

OR

Let's pick a number of diverse places around the country and allow everyone to be armed, everywhere: schools, bars, churches, etc. Then debate will no longer be necessary. We will know, once and for all, if arming everyone ensures maximum safety or maximum carnage.

It has already been determined that countries where firearms are illegal have less deaths by way of gunfire. The NRA is a very powerful group in the US, and this is why not one Politician dares attempt to say more than they have. Even the President of the United States steps gingerly, and carefully picks his words when speaking somewhat against the NRA.

People are running around B!tching about soft drinks, cigarettes, and fast food, but no one dares make a commercial about how detrimental the NRA has been for peoples health in this country.

Should the NRA be banned?
No.
If you don't like the second amendment to the constitution, then past a new amendment.

I wouldn't do away with gun ownership outright, but I think that technology needs to catch up to the times and there needs to be a way for weapons to only be operated by their registered owner. Use GPS and Smartlocks on guns as well as a way to DNA tag the bullets (so it's always known who fired the shot, and only the registered owner can fire the gun). That'll deter a lot of gun violence going forward when the anonymity is removed for the most part. People will be less likely to shoot someone when there is absolute no doubt left as to who it was that fired the gun. They should also stop making bullets for the guns which don't have these deterrents in place. Of course there will be black market weapons and ammunition (as always) so the people who really want to commit crimes almost always will (which is actually the bulk of the problem. It's not really the legal owners of weaponry committing the crimes), but their resources will eventually dwindle when the new smart weapons and smart bullets are the only show in town.

Probably my favorite gun-law commercial:

YouTube video

Originally posted by Stoic
It has already been determined that countries where firearms are illegal have less deaths by way of gunfire.

Originally posted by Stoic
Should the NRA be banned?

No, it shouldn't.

Guns don't kill people...the NRA does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Guns don't kill people...the NRA does.

😂 That's terrible!

Guns are here to stay and they're not going anywhere. At this point trying to fight this issue and BAN the right to own guns would be the same as trying to get through a brick wall by bashing your skull against it. To me it's the same as prohibition. People are still going to rob, kill and mass massacre. Media and prime time programming is more dangerous and powerful than any other practical machine weapon in the world. Are we censoring SEX and Violence in art and media? Untill that happens, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be an NRA

Well put.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Guns are here to stay and they're not going anywhere. At this point trying to fight this issue and BAN the right to own guns would be the same as trying to get through a brick wall by bashing your skull against it. To me it's the same as prohibition. People are still going to rob, kill and mass massacre. Media and prime time programming is more dangerous and powerful than any other practical machine weapon in the world. Are we censoring SEX and Violence in art and media? Untill that happens, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be an NRA

Not only would trying to ban all firearms be a brick wall that most politicians would most likely bang their heads into, (as well as the jeopardy it would present to their careers) but as a matter of historical practicality, look what happened when the Moral Majority crowd tried to push Prohibition on people: black market sales and Mafia wars over alcohol went thru the roof and innocent people still died, all over the simple right to have a drink.

I know the two cases are different, but the result was the same-a war started because faceless bureaucrats took the peoples' right to something away while most likely enjoying it themselves.

What's to say that a ban of firearms in a demographic as large as America wouldn't have the same effect? And I wholeheartedly agree with jinXed by JaNX-sex and violence and the media play a large role in the promotion of violence, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon...

Originally posted by Fallschirmjäger
Not only would trying to ban all firearms be a brick wall that most politicians would most likely bang their heads into, (as well as the jeopardy it would present to their careers) but as a matter of historical practicality, look what happened when the Moral Majority crowd tried to push Prohibition on people: black market sales and Mafia wars over alcohol went thru the roof and innocent people still died, all over the simple right to have a drink.

I know the two cases are different, but the result was the same-a war started because faceless bureaucrats took the peoples' right to something away while most likely enjoying it themselves.

What's to say that a ban of firearms in a demographic as large as America wouldn't have the same effect? And I wholeheartedly agree with jinXed by JaNX-sex and violence and the media play a large role in the promotion of violence, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon...

Are you saying that the NRA runs the United States government? When the government banned smoking in public places was there a war, or did people have to adhere to the new law? When has it become wrong to place tighter restrictions on devices that if placed in the wrong hands kill babies, mothers, fathers brothers, friends?

For those that see nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, or that it's perfectly fine for gun lobbyist to have more power than the President of the United States, let me ask you this.

How would you feel if you were walking up the street with your first born child, and out of nowhere, she, or he, suddenly falls to the ground only to find out moments later that they were killed by a stray bullet? What if your spouse was killed in this manner, or sister, brother, parents or best friend/s? How would you feel? Would you feel the same way that you do now? This is after knowing that if you were in Canada, or somewhere in Europe and knew that if you lived there, none of that would happen, because there are tough laws on carrying a handgun. I mean how would you feel? I just believe that we don't need the 2nd Amendment in the present day United States, when the Police force is so much larger than when this bill was passed long ago. Do you guys see my point on this? It's easy to be lighthearted when someone else has their house burned to the ground, but when it happens to us, it becomes a crisis.

For years, tobacco lobbyists tried to make people believe that cigarettes did not cause cancer, and it took years for tougher laws to be passed on them. Why is this? Money? Could the NRA actually be the true power in this country? I would really enjoy for someone to answer these questions in as proactive a manner as possible. I have a problem with innocent people losing their lives because the people that are supposed to be in power fear doing the right thing. It just seems like a David vs Goliath type situation concerning this. Is it? I mean is it impossible to to challenge the giants of this world?

Yes I can see that in the beginning, that there would likely be more trouble, but after a while people would have no choice but to fall in line. This country wasn't always as civilized as it is today. Look at slavery, and how long it took to become illegal. If we the people just gave up, slavery may still be in effect.

Out of respect for your many questions, I'm going to try to answer each question on an individual basis, and my apologies for being so long in this case.

Originally posted by Stoic
[Are you saying that the NRA runs the United States government?

This is part of the reason why these types of hot button issues get nasty-the insertion of words in the mouth of the dissenting individual, aka embellishment of speech. I never said the NRA runs America. With all due respect, that was your call not mine.

Originally posted by Stoic When the government banned smoking in public places was there a war, or did people have to adhere to the new law? When has it become wrong to place tighter restrictions on devices that if placed in the wrong hands kill babies, mothers, fathers brothers, friends?

As if cigarettes don't kill. How about the rich people?
Rich elitists and Hollywood people and politicians own guns, right? So to pose the question in reverse, do you feel that restrictions should be placed on guns by the rich and elite who are excepted from those restrictions? I mean, where does it say that their lives are worth more than ours? It's the right of The People, not the right of the bureaucrats. If one can have, so can the other.

I personally don't believe in assault weapons, but I also don't believe that the gun haters (like Rosie O' Donnell and Michael Moore) should be grandstanding hypocrites about the immorality of using a gun for self defense when they themselves are guarded 24\7 where ever they go. And where do these restrictions stop? When is enough, enough?

Originally posted by Stoic For those that see nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, or that it's perfectly fine for gun lobbyist to have more power than the President of the United States, let me ask you this.

How would you feel if you were walking up the street with your
first born child, and out of nowhere, she, or he, suddenly falls to
the ground only to find out moments later that they were killed by
a stray bullet? What if your spouse was killed in this manner, or sister, brother, parents or best friend/s? How would you feel? Would you feel the same way that you do now? This is after knowing that if you were in Canada, or somewhere in Europe and knew that if you lived there, none of that would happen, because there are tough laws on carrying a handgun. I mean how would you feel?

I never said that handgun laws shouldn't be tougher, but the fact remains again that it's a stepping stone to tougher laws that will eventually ban regular guns. Give an inch, take a mile. And again, I don't see the law limiting the right of people like Hollywood heavyweights Howard Stern or Robert DeNiro (who have CCW permits).

As to people dying from guns like you said above, seems 3,000 people died in one day on 9\11 and no one took the right to religion away in America. In fact some cheered for the attackers...

Also 98,000 people are estimated to die A YEAR from medical malpractice at the cost of around 29 Billion to the country. And until that many people die from guns in America in one year, you'd best be scared of the doctor more than the gun, especially since some of these doctors can (and are) still practicing in other states.

A doctor, no less,someone who is truly needed by society.

Originally posted by Stoic I just believe that we don't need the 2nd Amendment in the present day United States, when the Police force is so much larger than when this bill was passed long ago. Do you guys see my point on this? It's easy to be lighthearted when someone else has their house burned to the ground, but when it happens to us, it becomes a crisis.

Have you ever had to defend yourself from a violent home intruder? And what if the police can't get there? Are you supposed to supposed to "retreat" to a corner and allow someone to change your life or personally end it for 5 bucks in a cookie jar? Why should someone totally rely on an outside force esp. since that force runs a risk of not getting there in time?

Like you said earlier, "it's easy to be lighthearted when it's someone else's house that burns down, but when it's yours it's a crisis". You really need to consider the other side of the issue.

More at this point wuld be redundant as it's the same old, same old, but I hope this answers some of your questions. Peace.

Stronger restrictions on gun control will only hinder law abiding citizens. They would have little chance of defending themselves against violent street gangs and criminals (who won't care about gun control laws anyway).

Originally posted by socool8520
Stronger restrictions on gun control will only hinder law abiding citizens. They would have little chance of defending themselves against violent street gangs and criminals (who won't care about gun control laws anyway).

And that, my friend, is why gun laws don't work, because criminals have no fear of the law. And again, why should America's rich and elite go around with CCW permits and\or armed bodyguards but turn a blind eye to ordinary Americans who want that same security? Hypocrisy is stronger than it ever was, it seems.

Also, for all their concerns on gun violence, the lawmakers in charge of Fast and Furious greatly contributed to the problem, so they really have no right to criticize.

Michael Moore also comes to mind here: for all of his gun control zealousy, his bodyguard was arrested on illegal gun charges at JFK airport back in 2005.

So while it may not be related to the topic of the NRA and if they should be banned, the point is that with Fast and Furious and Michael Moore respectively, we have people grandstanding about guns when they themselves really don't know what they hell they're doing.

^ you make good points. I would have to agree

Guns should be outlawed and people should go back to carry swords and daggers. Those were the days.