I'm a former member of the NRA and a dem gun owner who thinks we don't need assault weapons for the "purpose" of hunting. That is not to say that i think they should be banned either. But some form of regulation is needed. The NRA thinks the second amendment means that Ted Nugent can hunt deer with a grenade launcher. (true story, he has one mounted on his zebra striped Hummer) Well, that takes the sport out of hunting doesn't it? Hunting is a sport nowadays, our country has evolved beyond having to hunt for survival in most cases (there are exceptions). Seems to me that the NRA operates under the rule that if you do not tow their line, you are somehow an "enemy" of the gun rights movement. They even have an enemies list on their website last time i looked, some of the folks on the list deserve it in my opnion, some do not.
The NRA acts as if guns should be issued at birth. That is wrong. The open market in the gun industry, (gun shows) are a big reason we have so much gun violence in this country. Even Al Qaida is aware of how easy it is to buy unregulated guns at gun shows. They put in their terror training maual. Lets look at it from a domestic standpoint for a sec. We have folks like Tim McVeigh who i think everybody will agree was a domestic terrorist, driving around the country selling guns at gun shows to anybody with the cash to buy. Nazis, anti government militias, criminals and the like. The NRA says that gun shows need no more controls put on them. So by default, that means they say its ok to sell guns to these groups. Is that ok? Does that define a "well armed militia"? It does if you are in one that is trying to overthrow the government..
I didn't like the assault weapons ban as it was applied. It seemed to me that it was almost useless. I understand why bush 2.0 didnt choose to extend it. He knew that if he did extend it, he would possibly lose the NRA's endorsement. Some kind of law needs to be put in place to regulate the sale of assault weapons. I think if you can prove to the government that you are a decent taxpaying citizen who obeys the law and has a legitimate use for it, you should be allowed an FFL (federal firearms license) and should be able to own one. I do not believe that every person in the USA has a right to own an AK-47.
What good does it serve? None. I used to own a bushmaster for a couple of years, and you know what i ended up using it for? Shooting watermelons. I didn't carry it for personal protection when i had a concealed weapon permit. (i have a Sig Sauer 220 for that) It was basically a showpiece. I ended up selling it (to a cop buddy of mine) because i had no other use for it. I hunt with my 30.06 or my 32 Winchester special. They do the job just fine for hunting. If someone comes in my house, the Sig or my 25 Raven under the pillow do the trick just fine.
Even though i'm against the Patriot Act, i'm not losing any sleep about the government kicking in doors and turning on their citizens by taking our guns, therefore i do not feel the need to keep an assault weapon in my home to "protect" me from that. Our nation has had over 200 years to make the point that they aren't going to be doing that any time soon.The paranoid elements of the gun rights movement love to use that little gem to justify the right to own them. Ironic that the same politicians they support also authored the patriot act. "Vote Freedom First"... What a load!
Personally, i think the article you posted is typical NRA propaganda. They love to do things like that to scare the common man into thinking without the NRA the government will be kicking in their doors and snatching up their guns. It's how they get people to join and pay dues, thereby putting money in their coffers. It's a scam, plain and simple.
The NRA is also a predominantly repub orginization, so unless a dem candidate is a full on conservative like lets say, a Zell Miller or somebody like that, they're not going to get any endorsement from them anyways.
I say screw em!
