The latest school massacres

[xoxoxoBruce]

Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.

Gun owners who favor restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.

The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.

Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new background check requirements on high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.

“There’s this perception that people are neatly divided into folks who want an M1A1 Abrams battle tank to drive to work and those who want to melt every last gun and bullet into doorstops,” said Patrick Tomlinson, a science fiction writer and gun owner in Milwaukee who favors universal background checks and longer waiting periods for gun purchases. “There seems to be no middle there, but I know there is. I’m in it.”

WaPo

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WaPo

I believe there are many gun owners in this situation, and I have met some at field dog trials,
I have sometimes asked if they are a member of the NRA, and do they subscribe to the various NRA magazines.

This is where the NRA gets it's "membership" numbers, and a some of it's political power.
The NRA counts all magazine subscribers as "members" and is speaking for them.

There is a very simple and powerful way to voice opposition to NRA's political positions - write a letter to voice your opinion and
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS and maybe your NRA MEMBERSHIP.

.

[Griff]

The Catholic Church cooks their numbers similarly. It may be a common tactic across the board to make the general public think these are not tiny minorities of people making demands.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by traceur

Let's imagine a scenario where one of the states requires to pass some actual training before getting a gun license. Early on there would be a big hoopla about gun control and whether it's constitutional.

But if it stands, then over a few months you are going to have a new rising group of gun owners with an exclusive club mentality - they feel like they earned it, where gun owners in other states did not. This can be a potent viral strain to infect american gun culture with - remember how the american republicans defended the patriot act and phone tapping and so on? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Much the same can happen here internally - within the NRA culture - if you don't want the tests it's because you don't think you can pass.

Nope, I don't give a rats ass about what they do in N J, or Ohio, and certainly not NY. The argument isn't whether you can pass a test or not, it's how much information you want the government to know about you and your guns. When the government representing the "thems", come in the night to grab the guns and children, send you to the camps, and turn the elderly into soylent green, will you be prepared?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

That pretty much negates the claim that people need guns to protect themselves. The chance they'll need to protect themselves is very slim.

Not at all. The chances of me setting myself on fire don't dissuade me from keeping a fire extinguisher. Actually the need to defend the castle, is a slogan, a canned catch all, a conversation ender. The reality is defense is only a small part of the equation, there are other reasons and uses. Personally, I like the benefit of longer, stronger boners, but that's just me, your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I believe there are many gun owners in this situation, and I have met some at field dog trials, I have sometimes asked if they are a member of the NRA, and do they subscribe to the various NRA magazines.

This is where the NRA gets it's "membership" numbers, and a some of it's political power.
The NRA counts all magazine subscribers as "members" and is speaking for them.

There is a very simple and powerful way to voice opposition to NRA's political positions - write a letter to voice your opinion and
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS and maybe your NRA MEMBERSHIP.

This has always been my opposition to lifetime memberships. Once you're in, you're in. You can't quit, even if you die you're still on the books.

Originally Posted by Griff

The Catholic Church cooks their numbers similarly. It may be a common tactic across the board to make the general public think these are not tiny minorities of people making demands.

Yes, think of all the people on the mailing list for the insurance seller, AARP. When I approached 50 they offered an 8 year membership for $40. Silly me, 15 years after it expired, they still contribute heavily to my trash. I'm sure I'm counted in their powerbase.