Monday, April 09, 2018

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst

I really enjoy reading

Not that I do so often, but when I do, there's never a dull moment between conspiracy theories and a tongue-in-cheek version of current controversy.

Here's a version of the news, along with the occasional geeky comment:

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst:
With AR-15s in the news because of [insert this week's horribly depressing reason here], there's a chance you might be feeling rather peeved at the organization making sure guns are plentiful and easy to purchase in America, the National Rifle Association. But regardless of your politics, you've got to give the NRA some credit for their skill at hiding horrifying stories that would kill any other organization. Their feats range from preventing any real attempts at studying firearm violence to, well ...

(6) Campaigning To Re-Legalize Silencers Because Of "Hearing Safety"

I've been shooting guns for over 60 years.

I've fired "silenced" pistols.  Silencers don't STOP the sound of a shot; they just filter out the sound to the point where it's a "CRACK!" instead of a "BOOM!"   they lower the decibel level; they don't eliminate it.  So it's not as if you can shoot a silenced gun and nobody can hear it ... except in the movies.

Have you ever looked at the muffler on your car?  It's a couple of feet long and several inches wide, and weigh several pounds.   They're MUCH more effective than the silencer you can put on the end of the barrel of a gun.

Silencers are a boon to competitive shooters; they have nothing at all to do with sneaky shooting people so nobody knows you just killed them ... which is the scenario suggested by the CRACKED author who obviously doesn't know SHIT from SHINOLA when he tries to shine on readers who expect a knowledgeable analysis from a trusted source.

(5) Promoting Dumbass (And Dangerous) Conspiracy Theories
"The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States’ having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” and will result in a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens” — is erroneous in all its particulars ..."
Actually,  had Clinton been elected president, she would most likely have imposed draconian restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in America.   Note her comment:  "The Australian Solution is worth looking into".

The Australian Solution was to ban private ownership of most firearms, and to confiscate all but a very few "special license" firearms.   The reason Hillary felt safe in suggesting that it might be a viable solution in America is that the Australians "repurchased" the guns ... for pennies on the dollar.  And BTW ... you can't "repurchase" something you didn't own before.

It's all smoke and mirrors with Hillary, and it's all a great big joke for CRACKED!

For Americans, it's a violation of our Constitutional Rights.

Check out the actual text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell me if you find verbiage which exempts private civilians from the extreme restraints imposed upon terrorists.  (You can't, because they cannot define the difference between a terrorist ans a home-owner.)

So ... yes, there IS a "Conspiracy" against Firearms Freedoms.  It' publically known as The Democratic Party, and privately know as Hillary Clinton .. who has been open in disavowing the validity of the Second Amendment.

(4) Screwing With Police Investigations By Not Allowing A Database Of Firearm Owners

Actually, the reason why Americans are against a Universal Database of Firearms owners is three-fold:
     *(A) Registration of all firearms provides a handy list of owners and guns when they come to confiscate your guns.  YOU may think this is a "Conspiracy Theory" on the part of legal firearms owners, but that's the current trend in Democratic Politics.   Yes, they DO want to "take your guns away" ... and they don't care how responsible you, as an individual, may be; they just want your guns.

    *(B)  Those states which have pushed, and/or are pushing for the legislation, are typically NE Seaboard states (NY, NJ, etc.) which are liberal and "citified".  *Also California*   They don't usually have a lot of gun owners, in part because of the cultural differences between themselves and more "rural" states.   City folks tend to be Liberal ... and vote that way!   It's significant that of all those states have been allowed to pass restrictive firearms laws as a tool to 'reduce gun violence' and "make it easier to resolve crime".  It's worth mentioning that not one state cited has solved a gun crime because of registration.

    *(C) Also, firearms owners are generally independent persons who do not care to be part of a "database".  Ownership of a gun is a private thing, just as is your sexual orientation and your religion.
It's significant that while your sexual orientation is not a Constitutional Right, Religion and Guns ARE!

(3) Exploiting Hurricane Harvey To Sell Guns To People Afraid Of Looters

Natural Disasters are an excellent example of exactly WHY we need out Second Amendment rights.
When the local infrastructure is INOPERATIVE because all communications lines are substantially  inoperative, police and emergency medical and fire protection resources are typically overwhelmed by all the calls for help.

South Eastern American disasters over the past few years have demonstrated that looters have been able to have their way with honest citizens, their persons and their property, when law enforcement is overloaded by the volume of calls for help.

When seconds count, Emergency Responders are weeks away; the best they can do is to (a) confiscate privately owned firearms and (b) pick up the corpses.   Oh, did I mention that the phones don't work?  Who you gonna call  .. Ghost Busters?

Police in these situations have as part of their "game plan" to confiscate privately owned firearms.  This does nothing to ensure the safety of their citizens, but it DOES ensure that marauders, thieves, rapist and killers are assured that all of their would-be victims are unable to protect themselves against those bad boys who didn't register their guns  (and never would).

(2) Endorsing The Work Of The World's Hackiest Researcher

John Lott.     The author of "More Guns/Less Crime", is a world renowned researcher who has written many scholarly articles, and has recently focused his attention on the firearm as a necessary took when seconds count and the police are minutes away.
Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as the Wall Street JournalThe New York Times, the Los Angeles TimesUSA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.[
Typifying Lott as "The World's Hackiest Researcher" is not only dismissive, but ignorant.   Just because the accuser refuses to acknowledge the experience and expertise of DOCTOR Lott doesn't reliably dismiss his experience and scholarly contributions to the issue of firearms ownership.   The accusation deserves less attention than it has already received.
And I would like to know when the accuser was awarded his PHD, and in what  area of expertise.


I didn't think so.  Cheap shot, dude!

(1) Sabotaging A Deal Between Smith &Wesson And The Government To Make Guns Safer After Columbine

 S&W developed a whole bunch of measures that they thought they  could implement to make their products safer. These included a commitment to researching and developing "smart guns" that could be locked to a specific person, plans to install safety devices on all new handguns that could lock them when not in use, and other less sci-fi-sounding but equally interesting ideas.
Actually, a lot of firearms manufacturers worked diligently to develop "Smart Guns" which would meet the requirements of ... basically ... prohibit access the the firing mechanism of a pistol by anyone except the registered owner(s).

The problem was, that when S&W offered firearms with "personal identifiers" to prevent non-authorized folks to use the gun ... the authorized folks couldn't use the guns, either.

You may be focused on preventing unauthorized usage of guns, but the folks who will BUY THEM want to make sure that when THEY pull a gun, it's going to work.  And S&W were unable to buile a reliable "Safe" gun.

In the final analysis, people who buy guns only want their car to start when they turn the key, their cell phone to connect every call, anti-biotics to cure their ills, and guns to work when they really really need to shoot someone who threatens them.


1 comment:

Mark said...

Rarely rarely does an anti-gunner know what he/she/it talks about.