Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Eric, you're playing in the Rani's sandbox. I tend to think she may have more insight on this than you do.

I don't think so. Many psychologists have a very narrow understanding of human nature. I went through this with kinser. No, I don't think psychology as it exists today has much on the ball. That doesn't mean it has nothing to offer at all. But there is too much materialism in these "sciences," and it is all-corrupting.

It is just common sense anyway. You are not being "sensitive" if, in reaction to gun violence, you reach for a gun. You are reacting in fear, and that is pretty simple. Fear is not sensitivity; it is the opposite. Again, pretty simple. No PhD needed.

The point is, we have been desensitized to gun violence and mass shootings. This latest one has opened some peoples' minds, though none around here have changed their minds. The "sensitive" reaction is to say "enough," like Gabby Giffords did, and to support more gun control. It is not to get more guns or arm teachers; that is the wrong approach. Security guards, maybe.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Who's more fearful, the guys who want to take away everyone's guns, or the guys who want to stand up to the bad guys directly and defend themselves?

I don't know who the guys are who want to "take away everyone's guns." That you make such a statement is evidence of your own fear and obsession. Perhaps you might want to see a shrink about that.

The guys who think guns are a defense against guns, are obviously the crazy ones. Why you are against war abroad, but not at home, is baffling, but I suspect it is your libertarian ideology. Anyone who is interested in truth, will junk their libertarian ideology, or any other ideology for that matter. And the really crazy ones are those who think people have a right to assault weapons, and think a ban on them is "taking them away." Such a ban will not result in confiscations; it is a ban on future sales and importation. But then, why mention rational sense to someone who has a libertarian gun obsession.

You're also redefining terms to suit your own purposes, as you did in the discussion on evolution.

We're back to that again. Evolution as the biological scientists talk about it, seems to be restricted in their minds to the Darwinian theories. But there is no reason on Earth to define "evolution" as the Darwinian theory of it. It is a much more general term. That does not depend on how I define it; that is the simple fact. So your crack means nothing.

Justin wants a citation; here's one:
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

If you want to dismiss the results of the psychological research that I quoted because you don't believe in science/psychology, that's fine, but if you want to twist the results to suit your own purposes, I'm going to call you on it.

You have called me on nothing. You don't even understand the terms you are using. A response of fear is not a sensitive response. Arming oneself is a response of fear. Case closed; no further study needed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

President Obama has signed executive orders that assume the powers of law enforcement that the Presidency has. He needs no Congressional approval for such. He has yet to show himself 'soft on crime'.

President Obama has Congressional Republicans in a bind. President Obama is going after weapons that few people like, against massacre clips, and the gun-show loophole while strengthening laws against fraudulent statements on background checks. This is not going to get in the way of sport hunters and target shooters. It will be rough on urban gangs -- not that they deserved to be coddled anyway. (Expletive deleted) the Bloods and the Crips, and let's keep people who have troublesome characteristics such as the mentally ill, drunkards, druggies, and spouse abusers from getting guns. Tough luck. Gun ownership ought to be a privilege as driving a car is.

Now what is the bind? The 2014 elections. As the 2006 midterm elections show, an unpopular Party majority can lose its majority. President Obama is not and has never been a "limousine liberal". He has cleverly taken an anti-crime stance that conservatives ought to love. Any pol who has to defend a vote massacre clips in a moderate district deserves electoral difficulty.

We've been down this road before which will eventually lead to liberal attempts and talk about banning handguns.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know who the guys are who want to "take away everyone's guns." That you make such a statement is evidence of your own fear and obsession. Perhaps you might want to see a shrink about that.

The guys who think guns are a defense against guns, are obviously the crazy ones. Why you are against war abroad, but not at home, is baffling, but I suspect it is your libertarian ideology. Anyone who is interested in truth, will junk their libertarian ideology, or any other ideology for that matter. And the really crazy ones are those who think people have a right to assault weapons, and think a ban on them is "taking them away." Such a ban will not result in confiscations; it is a ban on future sales and importation. But then, why mention rational sense to someone who has a libertarian gun obsession.

We're back to that again. Evolution as the biological scientists talk about it, seems to be restricted in their minds to the Darwinian theories. But there is no reason on Earth to define "evolution" as the Darwinian theory of it. It is a much more general term. That does not depend on how I define it; that is the simple fact. So your crack means nothing.

Justin wants a citation; here's one:
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution


You have called me on nothing. You don't even understand the terms you are using. A response of fear is not a sensitive response. Arming oneself is a response of fear. Case closed; no further study needed.

This whole thing is a response of/to fear. The Liberal's fear of guns and GUNOWNERS in particular. I'm probably gonna buy an assualt rifle just to have one available just in case. I have about as much faith in a liberal as a liberal like Bob has in God.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And even Eric knows that there's nothing he can do about it if you decide to get one:

Nope, there's nothing he can do if I decide to legally own one or if some bad guy or sicko decides to illegally obtain one and use it illegally.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

This whole thing is a response of/to fear. The Liberal's fear of guns and GUNOWNERS in particular. I'm probably gonna buy an assault rifle just to have one available just in case. I have about as much faith in a liberal as a liberal like Bob has in God.

As a liberal, I do not ask for your faith. The truth speaks for itself. At least you are right about fear. But the liberals are not responding in fear, but in sensitivity. The realize that things need to be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is just how Obama described it in his speech at the memorial service for the victims. He realized that we have not done enough about this problem. Soreheads like Joral and some others here don't want to face the truth, and would rather call such rational sensibility "insults" and defend soon-to-be certifiable mental cases like James Yeager. It says a lot about people when they defend budding terrorists. It is too bad that this is such an emotional issue, but I guess fear and violence have a way of bringing that out.

I don't usually feel a fear of gunowners, because I live in a safe neighborhood. But I'd say it might behoove us all to be a bit more watchful as we go about in public places, at least for as long as the gun nuts like Joral and the crazy James Yeager succeed in blocking any legislation.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Nope, there's nothing he can do if I decide to legally own one or if some bad guy or sicko decides to illegally obtain one and use it illegally.

Not me by myself, but we the people can try and stop the sickos from obtaining one. Universal background checks at least has about 92% support. Yes, I heard that stat on the news and on the web, and I don't have a cite handy. You'll hear it for yourself if you keep your ears open.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What, pray tell, is a "soon-to-be certifiable mental case?"
If a person with a known mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.) is brought by police to the E.R. after making threats of violence towards someone, and says that he spoke in anger and seems rational afterwards (which Yeager did in that video) there's no way that a doctor or other authorities can legally hold him against his will.
(And I'm not saying that he does or does not have a mental illness. That can't be determined without a full evaluation by a qualified professional.)

He might have to undergo that now.

P.S. There are no background checks done when people buy weapons illegally. That's why it's called "illegal."

And legal requirements will keep more guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not me by myself, but we the people can try and stop the sickos from obtaining one. Universal background checks at least has about 92% support. Yes, I heard that stat on the news and on the web, and I don't have a cite handy. You'll hear it for yourself if you keep your ears open.

Background checks have already been in place for a few decades. I have no issue with background checks and registering firearms at the time of purchase. If I had an issue with them, I would have purchased my firearms illegally vs legally.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Doubtful:



This is a rational person who realizes that he made an inflammatory comment and has now changed his tune.
If you're that concerned, try calling the local police department where he lives and ask that he be picked up and committed. See who they think the nut is.

OK; and I'll be sure to mention who gave me the suggestion.

Actually, I don't have to do that; he has raised enough flags that I'm confident the right thing will be done, whatever that turns out to be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As a liberal, I do not ask for your faith. The truth speaks for itself. At least you are right about fear. But the liberals are not responding in fear, but in sensitivity. The realize that things need to be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is just how Obama described it in his speech at the memorial service for the victims. He realized that we have not done enough about this problem. Soreheads like Joral and some others here don't want to face the truth, and would rather call such rational sensibility "insults" and defend soon-to-be certifiable mental cases like James Yeager. It says a lot about people when they defend budding terrorists. It is too bad that this is such an emotional issue, but I guess fear and violence have a way of bringing that out.

I don't usually feel a fear of gunowners, because I live in a safe neighborhood. But I'd say it might behoove us all to be a bit more watchful as we go about in public places, at least for as long as the gun nuts like Joral and the crazy James Yeager succeed in blocking any legislation.

As a liberal, and to liberals in general, you don't have or severely lack what it takes to earn my faith.

MEDINA, Ohio (AP) — Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits.

At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

The shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer, Long said. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said that it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged but that it appeared to be an accident.

The North Carolina show, which is held at the state fairgrounds, is a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. The two-day show shut down early Saturday but will reopen Sunday.

In Indianapolis, police said a 54-year-old man was injured when he inadvertently shot himself while leaving a gun show.

Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, state police said. Loaded personal weapons aren't allowed inside the show.

Cozee, of Indianapolis, was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.

And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought Saturday when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci said it appears the bullet ricocheted off the floor and struck the friend in the arm and leg. The man was taken by helicopter to a hospital 30 miles north in Cleveland, Berarducci said. His condition wasn't immediately known.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-show/1847879/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not me by myself, but we the people can try and stop the sickos from obtaining one. Universal background checks at least has about 92% support. Yes, I heard that stat on the news and on the web, and I don't have a cite handy. You'll hear it for yourself if you keep your ears open.

I have no argument with universal background checks. I have done three, one of which involved me sending the data to the ATF itself. We have a precedent in this country that certain rights are lost once someone has committed a felony, or broken one of another list of conditions. Losing the ability to legally possess firearms falls into that category, and often with good reason. We seem to have this issue about prisons and reform (or lack thereof) which adds to the problems.

Now, on to the next point about "crazies" or "mental cases". The laws at present are pretty clear who will and will not pass a background check. The problem though is whether the doctors in question have reported to NICS whether someone has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution". In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, this is what is believed to have broken down in the system. Previously, a magistrate had found that he was a danger to self and others, and this should have been reported. I have seen some proposals on how to strengthen this, but I'm not sure how.

One proposal has been to require some form of mental evaluation before every purchase. And here is my problem with this: There must be a standard for what disqualifies someone, not set by politicians (they are not qualified to make that call). There must be stiff penalties for a doctor who is willing to compromise his integrity and not follow those standards in either direction. In such a system, it would be tempting to cheat, and defections should be treated harshly. Without it, the law is meaningless. We live in a society where achieving the desired outcome is far more important than what integrity compromises you have to make, or toes you have to step on, to get there. There are several organizations (Brady and VPC come to mind) which I expect would be very tempted to stack the deck that way. Some enterprising individuals might as well.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Background checks have already been in place for a few decades. I have no issue with background checks and registering firearms at the time of purchase. If I had an issue with them, I would have purchased my firearms illegally vs legally.

I have a problem with registration because those lists can and will be used for confiscation at a later date. The strategy of the gun grabbers has always been to increase the restrictions until firearms are effectively banned, this was the strategy used in the UK even though it took decades. This is the reason why gun owners tend to fight so hard against any new restrictions.

Originally Posted by Galen

I have a problem with registration because those lists can and will be used for confiscation at a later date. The strategy of the gun grabbers has always been to increase the restrictions until firearms are effectively banned, this was the strategy used in the UK even though it took decades. This is the reason why gun owners tend to fight so hard against any new restrictions.

Stale NRA rhetoric, the classic slippery slope.* We already have licenses for hunting with firearms, and those could be used as signs that people have firearms. Retailers can be delivered subpoenas for records of purchases in the event that such purchases show the purchase of objects used in a crime. Someone who buys unusual quantities of fertilizer and racing fuel subsequently used in a bombing -- or purchases or rents a vehicle used in such a bombing -- can be nailed on that.

So it is with any material. If a killer bought poison or blunt objects of the sort used in a crime or in an attempt to conceal a crime -- the retail evidence can be used against you. If you used cash, your transaction may be on a photographic record. Your face and your purchase of baseball bats appropriate for a Little League team that never get used in Little league play but are used in a fatal beating can be used against you in a court of law.

Sport hunters are not the objects of the current debate on gun control. They do not use massacre clips when hunting deer. People who have shown themselves unreliable with firearms have no right to them.

* The government has reduced the speed limit from 65 to 55. Later it will be reduced to 45, then 40, then 35... eventually it will be impossible to drive at all because the speed limit for motor vehicles will be zero.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Stale NRA rhetoric, the classic slippery slope.* We already have licenses for hunting with firearms, and those could be used as signs that people have firearms. Retailers can be delivered subpoenas for records of purchases in the event that such purchases show the purchase of objects used in a crime. Someone who buys unusual quantities of fertilizer and racing fuel subsequently used in a bombing -- or purchases or rents a vehicle used in such a bombing -- can be nailed on that.

* The government has reduced the speed limit from 65 to 55. Later it will be reduced to 45, then 40, then 35... eventually it will be impossible to drive at all because the speed limit for motor vehicles will be zero.

Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, although it has often been used that way. Your speed limit example is almost laughable, because I don't see anyone arguing for lower speed limits. There are people arguing now for gun confiscation. VPC, IANSA (Brady Campaign is a member, although on the surface they claim to not support a total ban), Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are the primary examples.

Using hunting licenses would be a bad proxy. Some, probably a large number of gun owners, don't hunt. Every time the discussion of a ban comes out, the politicians are quick to claim they don't want to affect hunters. Divide and conquer, a staple of American politics. As for retail purchases, the explosives one is an interesting case, because it is usually a good preemptive clue that someone is doing something funny if they, as a non-farmer, buy huge amounts of fertilizer. Your baseball bat example seems to contradict your point though. Do we send cops to investigate every purchase of 5 or more bats? Three? The data is useful after the fact to make a case in court against someone, but not so much as a preventative matter.

Eugene Volokh wrote a Harvard Law Review paper on evaluating some of these cases, here. This exact example of registration leading to confiscation was one that he used, and I will quote the two points below which seem to be the most likely, especially including your hunting license claim above.

e. Registration may lower the cost of confiscation — since the government would know which people’s houses to search if the residents don’t turn in their guns voluntarily — and thus make confiscation more appealing to some voters.
f. Registration may trigger the operation of another legal rule that makes confiscation easier and thus more cost-effective: if guns weren’t registered, confiscation would be largely unenforceable, since house-to-house searches to find guns would violate the Fourth Amendment; but if guns are registered some years before confiscation is enacted, the registration database might provide
probable cause to search the houses of all registered gun owners.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And psychologists like Jung have repeatedly pointed out that emotion is not feeling. It is automatic response. A fearful, automatic response such as arming yourself is not a sensitive response at all. A sensitive response is to wake up from this madness and domestic arms race. It is to see that more guns mean more violence. It is to see that people are being killed, and that means we need to control guns. Murder is already against the law, but there are also other things that are needed, and Obama is taking the lead on those things too. Bravo.

I know I've told you this before, but Jungian "feeling" should actually be called Evaluation. It has nothing to do with "sensitivity".

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

This whole thing is a response of/to fear. The Liberal's fear of guns and GUNOWNERS in particular. I'm probably gonna buy an assualt rifle just to have one available just in case. I have about as much faith in a liberal as a liberal like Bob has in God.

Anyone who has no fear of a gun is a fool. I always assume that any firearm is loaded because a loaded gun looks like an empty one. I do not trust the statement of a gun owner on whether the gun has a bullet or two or does not. Memory lapse can be just as fatal as outright lies.

The gun that you intend to buy can easily be taken from you and used against you. Forget the Black Helicopter stuff -- think instead of the more mundane burglar. If you have an abusive spouse or a family member of questionable sanity or morals you are in more danger of the gun than from its absence. Then there is the real danger of violence from criminal gangs who fire off guns as if such brings an orgasm. A firearm is a very phallic symbol to some people.

There is no downside that I can see to making people pass background checks on their mental health in order to get a gun. Sure, it should be decided by a qualified person following some kind of standard. What is the impact if someone is denied a gun who is not really mentally ill? They are denied a gun. In other words: no negative impact at all.

NM shooting victims are chaplain, wife, 3 kids
POSTED: 01/20/2013 10:40:35 AM MST
UPDATED: 01/20/2013 11:03:08 PM MST By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A 15-year-old boy remained in custody Sunday night as detectives tried to piece together what led to the shooting of his parents and three of their children who were found dead in a New Mexico home.

The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings, which happened Saturday night at the home in a rural area southwest of downtown Albuquerque, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department said.

Authorities identified the victims late Sunday as Greg Griego, 51, his wife Sara Griego, 40, and three of their children: a 9-year-old boy, Zephania Griego, and daughters Jael Griego, 5, and Angelina Griego, 2. The suspect was identified as Nehemiah Griego.

Word of the shootings traveled quickly through the law enforcement community, and officials began offering their condolences for Greg Griego, a spiritual leader known for his work with firefighters and the 13 years he spent as a volunteer chaplain at the county jail.

"Chaplin Griego was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community," Fire Chief James Breen said in a statement. "His calming spirit and gentle nature will be greatly missed."

Jail Chief Ramon Rustin said Griego was instrumental in the creation of the Metropolitan Detention Center's chaplain program and worked to get inmates integrated back into the community.

Griego also was a former member of the pastoral staff at Calvary, a Christian church in Albuquerque. As part of his work there, he oversaw the Straight Street program for jail inmates.

Authorities said each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, and several guns were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle. Investigators were trying to determine who owned the guns.

"Right now we're to the meticulous points of processing the scene and collecting physical evidence, and this is a vast scene with a lot of physical evidence," sheriff's department spokesman Lt. Sid Covington said.


Read more: NM shooting victims are chaplain, wife, 3 kids - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...5-inside-home?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Anyone who has no fear of a gun is a fool. I always assume that any firearm is loaded because a loaded gun looks like an empty one. I do not trust the statement of a gun owner on whether the gun has a bullet or two or does not. Memory lapse can be just as fatal as outright lies.

The gun that you intend to buy can easily be taken from you and used against you. Forget the Black Helicopter stuff -- think instead of the more mundane burglar. If you have an abusive spouse or a family member of questionable sanity or morals you are in more danger of the gun than from its absence. Then there is the real danger of violence from criminal gangs who fire off guns as if such brings an orgasm. A firearm is a very phallic symbol to some people.

I'm not afraid of a gun unless it's in the hand of a certain humans and it's being pointed directly at me.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Anyone who has no fear of a gun is a fool. I always assume that any firearm is loaded because a loaded gun looks like an empty one. I do not trust the statement of a gun owner on whether the gun has a bullet or two or does not. Memory lapse can be just as fatal as outright lies.

The gun that you intend to buy can easily be taken from you and used against you. Forget the Black Helicopter stuff -- think instead of the more mundane burglar. If you have an abusive spouse or a family member of questionable sanity or morals you are in more danger of the gun than from its absence. Then there is the real danger of violence from criminal gangs who fire off guns as if such brings an orgasm. A firearm is a very phallic symbol to some people.

Government by liberal activists ain't any better than a dictatorship either.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Stale NRA rhetoric, the classic slippery slope.* We already have licenses for hunting with firearms, and those could be used as signs that people have firearms. Retailers can be delivered subpoenas for records of purchases in the event that such purchases show the purchase of objects used in a crime. Someone who buys unusual quantities of fertilizer and racing fuel subsequently used in a bombing -- or purchases or rents a vehicle used in such a bombing -- can be nailed on that

Let us consider the following from Feinstein:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.”

I don't think that her views have changed over the years and many here, including Eric the Obtuse, have made it clear that a ban on all firearms and confiscation are the goal.

This is not simply stale rhetoric since the gun grabbers have been pretty open about their intended goal for decades. The current stance of the NRA has evolved out of that reality and the NRA hardened its stance as its members started dropping them and joining GOA because the NRA was giving everything away, particularly in the seventies. Given that nothing less than total capitulation will satisfy the gun grabbers, a no compromise stance is a completely logical position to take.

Originally Posted by Galen

Let us consider the following from Feinstein:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.”

I don't think that her views have changed over the years and many here, including Eric the Obtuse, have made it clear that a ban on all firearms and confiscation are the goal.

This is not simply stale rhetoric since the gun grabbers have been pretty open about their intended goal for decades. The current stance of the NRA has evolved out of that reality and the NRA hardened its stance as its members started dropping them and joining GOA because the NRA was giving everything away, particularly in the seventies. Given that nothing less than total capitulation will satisfy the gun grabbers, a no compromise stance is a completely logical position to take.

Senator Feinstein =/= all supporters of gun control. The actual gun grabbers are a very tiny minority of inner-city authoritarians who don't hunt. Feinstein isn't even a Liberal, she's a corporate Centrist who panders to authoritarian Middle Class suburbanites and city-dwellers, the same group that wanted to ban video games in the 90s.

Even the majority of NRA members support stricter gun control legislation. The NRA represents the gun manufactures that fund them, not their members. I know several long-time NRA members that have dropped their membership because of this shit.

Originally Posted by Galen

Let us consider the following from Feinstein:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.”

I don't think that her views have changed over the years and many here, including Eric the Obtuse, have made it clear that a ban on all firearms and confiscation are the goal.

I am not for confiscation of all guns under all circumstances. Some people have no reasonable right to bear arms just as some people have no inherent right to drive a motor vehicle. Would a licensing test for owning a firearm be appropriate, including a written test? Think of the possible questions:

1. If I have a blood-alcohol content in excess of that which makes me
presumably intoxicated, can I safely use a gun?

2. If I have just recently had my firearm out and intend to use it for a lawful purpose in the next few days, need I concern myself with its safe storage?

3. Should I assume that all firearms are loaded and impress such upon others?

4. Is it acceptable to point a firearm at any person or animal that I have no intention or legal purpose of shooting?

5. Can a real firearm be a substitute for a toy?

I would probably pass that test even though I have no experience at the possession or handling of firearms. The motor-vehicles bureau of your state which handles licensing of use and registration of a similarly-dangerous object could handle it and could even link a firearms license could modify vehicle licenses to accommodate firearms.

This is not simply stale rhetoric since the gun grabbers have been pretty open about their intended goal for decades. The current stance of the NRA has evolved out of that reality and the NRA hardened its stance as its members started dropping them and joining GOA because the NRA was giving everything away, particularly in the seventies. Given that nothing less than total capitulation will satisfy the gun grabbers, a no compromise stance is a completely logical position to take.

The National Rifle Association is a lobbyist for the firearms industry. It has a vested interest in selling as many firearms as possible to as many people as possible. c