Logo by Matt Hinrichs
Theme by Anders Norén
October 31, 2003
Sorry, Dad. I’ve joined the NRA Blacklist. Nobody needs assault weapons to kill deer!
PostedOctober 31, 2003 — 9:11 am
November 1, 2003 — 1:27 am
I checked out the link and while I dont want to get into a long debate with you here just suffice it to say that some of what they said is in fact true and even I would probably agree it, a good portion of it however is not. The lawsuit thing against the manufacure is a good example, while they make them they are sold thru a federally licensed dealer who has a very strict list of requirements that must be met before anyone can purchase any firearm, the BATF are the ones who keep watch over this and regulate it. Im sorry but bringing a lawsuit against the manufacture because somebody was killed with a weapon they produced is wrong, if I someone uses their car to run somebody down do you sue Ford Motor company? Or if you are hit over the head with a baseball bat do you sue Louisville Slugger? Just so you dont think Im some “extremist” the assault weapons ban that is set to expire has some good points that in fact probably should stay in place. I wont go into the entire list of items it effects because there are way to many and depending on your interpretation of the way its written will determine what is banned and what isnt. As an example what would you say this means, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Yes I realize it was written in another time when things were very much different than today but so was the right guarantying free speach, its deplorable that there are people who use it to hide behind so they can post child porno on the internet but how do you slice them to fit todays world? And if they need to be “adjusted” to bring them into the modern age which group or party gets to do it? which ones should be left alone? Personally it wouldnt surprise me see that bring about a turn of events that led to the creation of them in the first place. I guess I sorta got carried away here, so much for not debating ya huh? 😛
November 1, 2003 — 9:10 am
*rolls eyes* Yeah, because all gun owners (and, therefore, all hunters) are kooky, extremist, redneck, don’t-you-come-on-my-property-or-I’ll-pop-you-full-of-lead Republicans that want nothing more than to be able to use “assault” weapons to hunt. And they’re evil. And did I mention that they’re Republican?
Look, the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible people who respect the dangers involved with their sport. There will always be negligent people out there, true, but you cannot demonize firearms, which are tools as well as weapons. And as your Dad states, anything can be a weapon. A butter knife can be considered a weapon. A frozen turkey can be considered a weapon.
The authors of this website are putting an obvious spin on both of the issues. I’m not thrilled about the assault weapon issue, but I also don’t know any fellow sportsmen who would want an assault rifle, other than for fun or for the simple joy of collecting.
Anyway — As far as their Issue #2 is concerned: There’s a bill on the table right now (S. 659, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) that would ban civil damages against gun manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations in lawsuits brought on the grounds that they were liable for the damage inflicted by a gun owner. S. 659 would also direct the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a list of manufacturers, sellers, and trade association that wish to be exempted from civil damages.
This legislation specifically protects the right to damages in two types of lawsuits – those stemming from manufacturer’s defects and suits against firearms sellers for violation of negative entrustment (the sale of weapons to persons who are unstable or intoxicated where the sale results in death, injury or destruction).
So? What’s so bad about this? Why should the gun manufacturer be responsible for what some crazy asshole decides to do with one of its products? All manufacturers are legally bound to sell only to authorized dealers who hold a license called an FFL, which is given out by the Federal Gov’t. If Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply was responsible for “losing” firearms and selling to the DC Snipers, well, go after Bull’s Eye. Go after the ATF agent who issued the FFL. Don’t blame the manufacturer; they’re simply providing a legal service that millions of law-abiding Americans enjoy.
And before anyone asks, yes, we’ve had friends killed by firearms. One friend was hunting turkey on his own property and was killed by a trespasser with a rifle. That trespasser was never found. Our friend’s family didn’t turn around and start filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers — no, they set up a foundation in his name and asked people to donate to a gun safety organization.
Every gun owner should take a gun safety course before they take home their first weapon. It was what I had to do before I was allowed to use the custom .22 my grandfather made for me. It’s called being responsible, being careful, and being accountable for one’s own actions.
Hope this made sense. I’m not preaching. I’m just a little tired of defending a sport that I, and many friends, enjoy safely. Thanks.
November 1, 2003 — 9:56 am
I don’t feel like I understand the issues well enough to form a well-educated opinion about the blacklist or the NRA, but that blacklist site bugged me a little by the big celebrity spin. I’m not going to join a cause because some pretty people who can act have signed on. I would rather the site be a little more specific about the issues and less about the number of hollywood-types who have jumped on a bandwagon.
November 3, 2003 — 12:34 pm
Sorry to have gotten folks’ dander up. My complaint is not with gun owners; in fact I’ve defended them in the past. My Dad knows that I haven’t objected to his deer hunting since I was eight years old (and incidentally, venison is YUM). It’s the NRA that I take offense to. It’s kinda like how I feel about PETA too. While I may agree with some of their stances, the fact is that both groups are run by absolute nutjobs who don’t see any middle ground. I mean, both Moire and my Dad pointed out that they don’t agree with their stance on assault weapons. I feel bad that the NRA is the only gun-owner lobby group that you can join to protect your rights (or is it? it’s the only one I’ve ever heard of), because wanting firearms dealers to be licensed and shooters to take safety courses shouldn’t mean you also have to support Charlton Heston insulting the people of Columbine by using their tragedy for political gain. But there you go.
More specifically, just to avoid any confusion, the blacklist was written BY the NRA. It’s a list of celebrities who’ve said *anything* about gun control that the NRA didn’t like. (Be grateful you’re not more famous, Dad and Moire, because the less-than-100%-enthusiasm you exhibited in your comments could probably get you on it.) Somehow the list got made public and Dustin Hoffman wrote the NRA a letter expressing his sadness that he wasn’t on it and asking to be added. That’s how the site I linked to started. It’s not a “count me because Julia Roberts is on it” thing; it’s a “man, I’m just as against the NRA’s fearmongering tactics as anybody else, so why shouldn’t I be on here?” kind of thing. (Additionally, I find the concept of a blacklist really childish. It’s like when the Baptists boycott Disney because they don’t actively prevent gays from congregating in the park. Saying that a person should be blacklisted because of one single opinion that you disagree with is paranoid, over-reactionary and immature.)
November 4, 2003 — 12:17 am
Very well said Kris and your correct there are nut jobs on both sides, Now for a less controversial topic I suggest we try politics. 🙂
November 4, 2003 — 1:40 am
I agree with you, Kris, about the NRA. I’m no longer a member of the NRA. and haven’t been for over a decade, becase I’d get their mailings and think, “What the hell??” They were waaaaay too rabid and crazy for me, even back then.
What I took exception to was how the NRA Blacklist website took Issue #2 and made it into a sob story, “Oh no, victims of gun violence won’t be compensated with millions of dollars, we must shut down these gun manufacturers!!” There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground with the Blacklist folks, either. I really do hate the Blame Game that gets played out in the courts each and every day. It seems that no one is accountable for their own actions anymore; there’s always someone else (i.e., someone with lots of money, specifically) to take the blame.
There are other firearm lobby groups out there, but they are more focused on a certain set of issues, whereas the NRA runs the whole gamut. Besides, the NRA is by and far the most popular, vocal, and well-known group — they aren’t going anywhere. Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited are two conservation groups that also lobby to protect hunter’s rights — they’re both focused on pheasant hunting and waterfowl hunting, respectively. Name your sport, and I can tell you a group that lobbies to protect your right to participate.
November 4, 2003 — 3:11 am
Thanks for explaining the list, Kris; I was quite confused. It makes much more sense now.
November 4, 2003 — 7:22 am
Oh, I’ve heard of Ducks Unlimited! I knew they were conservationists but didn’t realize they were hunters too. (It’s amazing how often those two go hand in hand.) 🙂
As for Issue #2, I think you’re reading too much into the little paragraph on the Blacklist site. To me (not knowing anything about the issue other than what’s on that page), it says that the NRA wants to protect even the BAD gun sellers, not that its opponents want to go after GOOD dealers. I agree that a licensed shop who does everything right shouldn’t be held responsible for what people do with the guns. But what do you do about the bad ones? Sure, it would be irresponsible to sell a drunk person a gun, but the whole “unstable” thing just seem too open to interpretation. This is where we get into black/white territory though. The NRA wants to shut down the possibility of ANY compensation, even from bad sellers, while the opposition want to preseve that option. It’s insane. Any rational person can see that there’s a middle ground where law-abiding dealers who follow the rules are protected but people who cheat the system get held responsible.
November 29, 2003 — 7:12 am
I totally agree that no one needs assault weapons to hunt. I also believe that some people do need weapons to protect themselves, but they don’t need semi automatics, a little hand gun will do it.
Comments are closed.