69Drag wrote:Devil5052, You've been around guns and this subject longer than I have, so maybe you know more about the NRA's history and/or stance on what should be allowed. You've suggested or claimed (pick the correct word) that the NRA's view is essentially "the sky's the limit". Not your words I know but thats basically what I'm getting out of your posts. My question is, do you have any specific examples of what the NRA's view is on high end weapons? Something other than stories by a media that tends to be slanted against the NRA in general? I ask this because since I've been part of the NRA, I can't recall reading anying in their magazine about being in favor of citizens possessing the way out there type of weapons that you've mentioned. But other than flame throwers and nukes, I can't say I know what weapons you're really concerned with.
I know they take a very rigid stance on things but, as has been stated before, thats because of the very clear goal of some in the government to take everything away. There have been statements made by anti-gun politicians that if they could take everyone's gun away tomorrow, they would. When you have maga-rich anti-gun people like Bloomberg, that threat becomes something to be taken seriously. The word "reasonable" gets used a lot but there is a very ligitimate reason to believe that they won't stop at reasonable and continue on until we are, for all intents and purposes, disarmed. The short version is we don't trust them so we fight.
Morning John. Some very legitimate questions & I will try to research the NRA website to find answers for you.
I agree that we should all have a very healthy mistrust of the government, especialy this one! I don't know what the NRA's view is on high capacity magazines, but I would guess that they are against restrictions. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Your comments about the "media" bring up a common view here that believes the media is liberal biased. My opinion is that this was true back in the 1950's-1970's but is no longer the case. The liberal editors & network heads have mostly been replaced with accountants who are only interested in profit. I think alot of the news divisions, like CBS news , which used to be somewhat autonamous & not expected to turn a profit, was years ago placed under the "Entertainment" division of CBS, & graded on profitablity. Add to that the virtual plethora of 24 hour news organizations (CNN, FOX, etc) all with different oners & agendas & you get a pretty good mix of views. Bottom line is they are all
only interested in keeping wealthy corporate sponsors happy (by not getting tough on them) *& keeping their viewers tuned to the next commercial.