Why doesn't the government start a new department to compete with the private NRA?????

[Pauldg47]

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

The right to bear arms is a basic right, so why is the NRA a private entity? A NEW department or sub-department should set apart a more responsible and competitive group that would....

. Bring about competition between the two.
. It would eliminate lobbying of politicians who should be representing their constituents; NOT the NRA.
. It would compete to promote proper licensing of arms forcing the NRA to promote the same.
. It would promote agendas that are not as radical (i.e. ... Guns in schools, etc. ), and support straight forward proper uses of arms, thus promoting a positive, reasonable, sellable and competitive organization that would leave the NRA in a position to compete too.

This is something I wanted to throw out there and have wanted people to consider. I think it is a safer and less corrupt way.

Could it be pulled off over time? Could our president make it law automatically? Is this just a stupid idea? Could it even save this nation of extremists?

What do you think? Is there any merit in this that could be expanded on rather than just plane criticism?

[liberal N proud]

1. Because the NRA lobbies Congress to make sure it is the only voice of the gun nuts

[Pauldg47]

9. Couldn't liberals lobby too. Or could it be done by executive order?....

......this would after all eliminate corruption of the NRA? There are liberal gun users that could lobby this; right?

If not, I believe after the old white men die....and I am one of them, the young guns (no pun intended) may be at war with these pricks who want to expand things their own way.

I'm just worried about my grand kids.

By the way I like to hunt and fish....I just do not think this corruption is good for this country.

[liberal N proud]

20. Do you know of a liberal organization with the money the NRA has?

Or one that so entrenched?

[Pauldg47]

29. Maybe the National Education Association ......

....I'm a teacher, but their not entrenched....it would take time.

But I don't believe it would take lobbies to do this, do you? I mean, the NRA is to many an enemy of our country. We don't need them to have the Right to bear Arms; do we?

[liberal N proud]

33. Money = speech

The NRA has more resources than anyone.

The NEA has many member of that organization who are also gun nuts.

[Hoyt]

2. Not a bad idea. But, gun fanciers will say if agency heads don't know difference between a clip and

magazine (or other aspects of the nomenclature game played by gunners), they can't possibly express an opinion on little kids getting shot by weapons owned by irresponsible gun loving right wing parents.

Point is, the right/white wingers (and even supposed liberal gun owners) will politicize it to the point it would just be a government approved gun promoting organization.

[Pauldg47]

3. Maybe if it were run by responsible people bearing arms.....

....there would be more responsible people using guns to teach kids?!!

I'm not sure Congress could put this forward, could they? Could the President just make this Law with his Presidential power?

[Hoyt]

5. I'm not sure what "responsible people bearing arms" means, at least nowadays.

I'm not at all sure we need to be teaching kids anything about guns except they are bad for society -- like tobacco, bigotry, etc. -- and life will be better if everyone considers them out-of-bounds, taboo.

I would not go for the idea if it's to promote guns, or to be run solely by people who can't walk out the door without a gun strapped to their body. Might as well just leave it up to the NRA and those who support the same things but are just too cheap to pay dues.

[Still Sensible]

4. Don't think it would make any difference

if the new government department wasn't suitably gun-nutzoid enough, the NRA would continue same as now... with a new gubmint bogeyman to rail against.

[Pauldg47]

6. Can the President get this going on his own like Bush creating the homeland Security?

[Calista241]

35. Technically, Bush didn't "create" DHS or the cabinet position.

On Sept 22, 2001 Bush created a new council called the Office of Homeland Security in the White House and appointed Tom Ridge as the Director.

In June of 2002, Ridge submitted his plan to congress, and in November congress passed and Bush signed the Homeland Security Act. Ridge was then nominated as the new department's first Secretary.

The President cannot create cabinet positions without the approval of congress. He can, however, create councils and appoint Directors. This creation and appointing of "Czars" was what the GOP was bitching about early in the Presidency.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Pardon but...

...I think those two events were in 2001 and 2002.

[Calista241]

37. You are correct and I feel like an idiot. N/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Don't sweat it. We've all made mistakes.

I was a Republican for a while.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

7. Guns aren't allowed in schools now.

You see, making something illegal only stops sane law abiding people from doing those things made illegal. Insane criminals couldn't care less that it's illegal to murder people. You and I don't need a law to prevent us from committing murder. To the criminally insane, there is no law that will prevent it.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

8. I don't

Disagree with you premise though. Registration would be a huge cluster guck but a firearm license wouldn't hurt my feelings. I already have one. I just can't picture the local convenience store robber fretting about pulling off the robbery because he doesn't have a firearm license or a legally owned firearm.

[Pauldg47]

10. It's just an idea that has merit. Start up for other entities such as social security...

Took a great amount of effort to start as did the ACA. With some patience this could happen, do you think.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

13. Wouldn't the

BATF fill the spot?

[Pauldg47]

15. What is the batf.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

21. Bureau of Alcohol

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

[link:http://www.atf.gov/|

A little read on the assault weapons import ban that's still in effect.

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html|

[Hoyt]

11. Criminals wouldn't get guns so easily if gun fanciers weren't so careless with their guns, or so

willing to sell them to just about anyone with a fistful of cash at a gun show, in a back alley or otherwise.

Yeah, it's going to be tough to have an immediate impact since this crud has been going on so long by so-called "responsible gun owners," but sooner of later we need to start doing something including making the original purchaser (almost all guns start out "legal&quot responsible for careless storage, selling them without going through an FFL, etc. That requires registration.

Even if it takes decades to show results, we have to start somewhere like the Australians had the sense/guts to do in 1996. Every decade we sit around with our thumbs up our rears coddling gun fanciers, another 100 million guns are flooding the market.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

12. I agree

[billh58]

14. No, there is absolutely no merit to

this "idea." Your opening statement gives the whole thing away: "The right to bear arms is a basic right..." This is the right-wing interpretation of the Second Amendment as upheld by the neoconservative Gang of Five on the SCOTUS which overturned long-standing reasonable interpretations by previous Justices, and is yet again subject to change.

It is a right which can, should be, and is, regulated for the benefit of the general public. The actual "bearing arms" part of the Second Amendment is subject to further regulation as to where, why, and when.

Nationalizing the NRA would be tantamount to calling the armed neo-Nazi militias in this country to active duty and expecting them to not only obey the orders, but to give up their intentions to overthrow the Federal Government and its black president.

[Pauldg47]

16. I didn't say nationalizing the NRA.......

....I said to create a new department of our government to compete with the NRA.?...sort of how the postal service competes w other carriers.

[billh58]

18. Let me get this straight.

You come to the Gun Control Reform Activism safe haven Group and advocate for a pro-gun governmental agency whose goal would be to promote more guns in our streets?

I believe that you may be posting in the wrong Group. The Gungeon is down the hall and to the right....

[Pauldg47]

24. No that's not what I'm driving at.....

By advocating a government agency that condones true gun safety, there will not be NRA gun lobbies influencing our Congress and Senate.

This would actually take away some membership from the NRA. I do not think it would make things worse, do you?

[billh58]

25. Again, you are posting in

the wrong group. What is your other (real) screen name Bubba?

[Pauldg47]

27. Take a political science class Bubba!

I guess you don't understand. Look at the original post. There are others who get it!

[Pauldg47]

17. Also, not every member in the NRA is radical and do not like where they're at.

Maybe if they had another group to be with, they'd move out of there.

[billh58]

19. If NRA members were not

radical right-wingers, they would not belong to the NRA.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

22. You'd be surprised how many Fudds

there are in the NRA as well as the Republican Party.

[billh58]

23. Shhhhh...

Wabbit twacks....

[Pauldg47]

26. There are many Democrats who hunt......

......are liberal and in the NRA. They don't obsess with gun shows and simi-automatic weapons.

If there was a better less extreme organization to join, they would gladly leave the NRA is my point.

My writing skills are poor.

[Hoyt]

28. Well any true Democrat in NRA ought to look at their right wing policies,

RW leadership, efforts to defeat Democrats, their racist President, and worse. If guns are that important to someone, they are suspect in my opinion.

[Pauldg47]

30. Fifty years ago the NRA was not this radical.

I would not join them now. I believe they are as dangerous as the kkk.

[Hoyt]

32. This isn't 50 years ago and gunz today, and the people who covet them, are more dangerous.

[billh58]

34. Another NRA cheerleader

attempting to disrupt this Group. Right-wing gunners never give up, which is why we need to support the Liberal Gun Control organizations in any way that we can.

[doc03]

31. They don't trust the guvmunt n/t

[jeepnstein]

39. http://www.thecmp.org/

They started this a while back. It's wildly successful.