Originally Posted by Thorpesaurous
I'm a gun owner, and I would have little to no problem with any of increased measures you propose to getting a gun. However I do know that the NRA opposes many of these measures, as their position is consistently at the extreme, with the argument that they're constantly trying to prevent the slippery slope.
I also feel like we'd be better off if these decisions were put further into the state's hands. I live in Connecticut. Could I get by without a gun? Probably. But people who live in more hunting rich parts of the country, or people who make their living as farmers, why should they have their feet held to the fire because other states can't handle the responsibility. Why should a community in say Montana have to abide to restrictions to something that is inherently part of their existence, just because some sociopath kid shot up a school.
The biggest problem with the current jump to solution items we're hearing is that few of them would've affected the outcome of this tragedy. Banning thirty round clips wouldn't have helped. Banning assault rifles wouldn't have changed much. This energy would be better suited figuring out a methodology of protecting our schools.
I don't think that any of the current proposals would affect anything that "inherently part of a Montanan's existence."
Most NRA members are in favor of the proposals that are being offered. However, the NRA is not really an organization of sportsman any more. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.
The Washington Post just had an article when the radicals took over the NRA and transformed it from a hunting organization into a gun lobby.