Seventy Percent of NRA Members support "Reasonable" Gun Controls!

It depends on what your definition of "Is", is.

Let's take this question of two levels:

First, what is your definition of "Reasonable" Gun Controls.
Second, what is the political agenda behind that definition?

Taking the second question firsts, there are a LOT of people who think that the word "REASONABLE" means "Highly Restrictive".  These are those folks who think that, for example "reasonable" includes Firearms Registration.

Most folks in the NRA are convinced that "Registration equals Confiscation".  And yes, there is some history which supports this belief.

The "Keep And Bear Arms" website contains an article which testifies to the 1999 California Confiscation of SKS rifles:

Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a $230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter, you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which has been run on local radio stations.
This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.
The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.
There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion, California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!

So, the folks that don't believe that "Registration equals Confiscation" ... be warned!

In America, that not only CAN happen, but it HAS happened.  Learn from it.

We have learned from that lesson, and so it's difficult to believe that "seventy percent of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Controls'.  

Essentially, for political or 'other' (is there an 'other' reason besides political?) reason, the politicians in your state ... or in your country ... WILL confiscate your firearms.  

"Pay no attention to what they say, but look closely as what they do!"
This is the political wisdom which was imparted to me by a Vietnamese "Boat Person" in the early 1990's.  He was speaking about the Communists in Viet Nam at the time, but is there really that much difference?

Here's what 'those people' mean when they speak of 'reasonable gun controls' (From "ThinkProgress.ORG": the folks who provided the terrific quote that started this rant)

 In fact, new research released in July by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors against Illegal Guns, finds that gun advocates overwhelmingly support common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:

1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.

  
I'm deliberately not going to 'fisk' this, because on the surface they DO sound "reasonable".


 Okay, so maybe I will fisk this just a little bit:

5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. 
 
Frankly I'm not sure that this isn't subject to abuse.   Having been "arrested" for an "domestic violence" is often nothing more than a disgruntled spouse wishing to make trouble for the partner. An actual  accusation is not required; if provided, it need not be supported by evidence or testimony.  The obvious assumption is that some man is beating up on his wife, Girlfriend, or "Domestic Partner". 

What is NOT obvious is that the alleged incident may prevent someone from free exercise of his civil rights, based on hearsay testimony.

The iimplications of the arrest may be that any firearms owned by the arrested spouse may be confiscated, and perhaps never returned .. depending upon the local laws applicable in such cases, which may vary between jurisdictions.

We need not go into the details of the other four fundaments of the assertion that "NRA Members" agree with the  "Violent misdemeanors" clause, because we don't know how that question was  posed to the "NRA Members" polled.  All we DO know is that words may be misleading.  And we also understand that although we as honest citizens may need to be very careful about how we respond to questions from a putatively neutral source, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are feeding us null-value questions.

And we have no input into the manner in which our responses may be evaluated.

Let's look at the OTHER four out of five questions which seem to support this assertion:


1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.


 Answers/responses are 

(1) and (2)  We're Conservatives; of COURSE we're leary of "terrorists" .. depending on your definition.
(3) That's a no-brainer: yes, we want people to report it when their guns are stolen.  The problem is, we don't always notice that a gun is missing.  How often do YOU inventory your firearms collection?  And if there is a penalty involved if you don't report it in x-number of days .. are you going to report it LATE?  And risk a penalty because you "did the right thing" but your acknowledgement didn't fit their arbitrary time frame?


 (4)  I think that ANYONE who owns a gun should be encouraged to learn safe gun-handling skills.  I do this kind of training all the time. To oppose this concept would be to deny my goal of wanting to train EVERYBODY!  On the other hand, this sounds as if failure to meet this too-specific goal might result in punitive measures against people who just want to learn to shoot.  I teach people as young as 10 years old, and this would deny them the right to learn safe gun-handling skills during the period when they are most likely to best benefit from the teaching.  I have been beaten in competition by young persons too often to accept this limitation without protest.  Some people just don't understand that teaching kids to shoot is A Good Thing!

I'm pretty sure that the folks who arbitrarily settled on the "21-year-old" rule had their best interests in heart. But they ignore the fact that some 10-year old kids are more mature than some 21-year-old kids.  Not all of them, for sure, but enough of them that we're looking at the potential insertion of round pegs in square holes.

When "The Government" gets involved, they feel constrained to establish arbitrary criterea.  That doesn't always match reality.

My take on this is that when we allow The Government to establish standards,  they usually except the exceptional people who do not meet their standards by the mere fact of age, gender, or other, criteria.  This is a valid "Bureaucratic" standard, but if it did not meet the critera that it be adjusted to fit the circumstances, it's flawed.

 So .. speaking only for myself, I do NOT accept the principle that "xx% of NRA members support 'Reasonable Gun Control' Measures".  I only accept the principle that a significant percent of NRA members MAY have mis-interpreted the questions, and that the results of the "survey" have been deliberately skewed  (mus-interpreted) to meet the pre-determined conclusions which the survey takers have established as the private agenda of the survey takers.


Frankly, I doubt the veracity or interpretation of ANY "survey" which may be conducted by "These People".  Their  motivation is always suspect, their  honor is extremely suspect, and I think that any time they open their mouth you can determine their veracity because they lips are moving.  They are notorious congenital liars, and anyone who believes a single word they say is a damned fool!

Well ... not to put too fine a point upon it.  That's what *_I_*  think!

YMMV