Previous Post
Next Post

Lefty Brit paper The Guardian has published an article article entitled ‘NRA lecture details ways to circumvent restrictions on buying guns.’ After that bit of hyperbole – admittedly not uncommon where headlines are concerned – the writer explains what the lecture was really all about . . .

It detailed attorney Bryan Ciyou’s program informing attendees how to legally protect and restore the right to own and use firearms.

A National Rifle Association lecture informed hundreds of people at the group’s annual meeting in Indianapolis on Friday how they could try to stop felony convictions and mental health problems preventing people from legally buying guns.

Attorneys, firearms retailers and rank-and-file members paid the lobby group up to $295 each for a day-long seminar which included a lengthy session on “mainstream and novel” techniques for restoring gun-ownership rights, such as scrubbing criminal records or challenging them in court.

So the NRA’s gone rogue? They’re telling criminals and psychopaths how to skirt the law and obtain guns to perpetrate even more gun violence? Well, no. Not really.

Ciyou took care to stress that those convicted of the most serious felonies and those with the most dangerous mental health problems should not be allowed to access firearms.

Of course, that didn’t really matter much, judging by the comment section. This from Wonkothesane76:

When the gun debate comes to these pages, the pro-gun lot always try to tell us that its a problem with the mentally ill, or criminals having guns……how the hell does that defence work now??

Please let the next, inevitable massacre involve members of the NRA and their loved ones. Let them reap what they sow.

Here’s another, from Nelson Ricardo:

 The NRA are utter disgusting filth. One can only hope they all end up shooting themselves accidentally with their own firearms.

But as has been demonstrated time and again, Second Amendment supporters are well-represented just about everywhere these days. Commenter Rattel sums up the situation:

So to sum the article up, Obama has caused gun laws to tighten up and basically prevent more people from possessing guns. The NRA is resisting this and has held a seminar exploring entirely legal ways of resisting the government’s erosion of a constitutional right.

Reading the comments under the article is educational in the sense that it gives one insight into the world view of those for who the natural civil and constitutional right to keep and bear arms means nothing. Those for whom governments do no wrong (unless they’re right of center) and the NRA is a malicious organization bent on evil. It’s a world view is based on strong, negative, emotions; anger, rage, and hate. It would be comical if so many of our countrymen didn’t have this same twisted view of reality.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Anyone here still think the NRA can reach out to non-traditional folk?

    The NRA’s been demonized for so long that any NRA-associated project will attract the extremists and the insane, which will ruin any progress on coming together as gun owners.

    • Yeah, I think the NRA can. Most people who aren’t part of the NRA only know it as the “gun rights group”. The first thing they need to do is completely change the public face of the organization. That means Putting more women and non-white people in positions of power and out there speaking and representing them. Start showing up at more festivals and fairs that one wouldn’t think are associated with the NRA, like the Mayhem Fest (a hard rock/metal music festival – the Marines and National Guard are already part of it!) or the Burning Man festival. I knew a lot of hippies when I was younger who liked to shoot and hunt. What the NRA needs is a new marketing campaign that not only defends our rights to own firearms but actively promotes the sport of shooting even more than they currently do. Let people know that the NRA, shooting and firearm ownership is much, much more than they imagine it could be.

    • Hell yeah, not only can they, this shows they must change.

      Old story: Two shoe salesmen stop in a 3rd world country where no one wears shoes. first guy leaves and says, ‘well, they don’t want what I’m selling.’

      The second one says, ‘Look at all these people who need shoes and don’t realize it!’ then sells all his shoes to the people amazed by them.

      So, to get back to guns, well, look at all those people who don’t realize how useful guns are! they’re a market for selling and the NRA has to get to the selling part.

      All us other gun folks too. We have to start taking responsibility for ourselves not to tie guns to abortion or race or religion because when you’re marketing Snickers you don’t talk about Hersheys.

      I’m not saying give up on your values, just sell them separately and let the guns issue stand on its own:

      To wit:

      • I’m not sure that is the NRA’s job. Wouldn’t you think, in line with the original concept, that gun stores could come up with an advertising campaign which plays on people’s fears like the antis do, but with reality behind it? “Are YOU afraid to go out on your own street at night? Do thugs and pushers make you worry constantly for the safety of your children? (had to get that in, right?) Come on down to Ted’s Defensive Arsenal for all the training you’ll need to handle your new .500 S&W triple magnum. You’ll never be afraid again!” Followed by a clip (not magazine) of somebody blowing a hole in a cast iron engine block.

        Where is that? Like your guy selling shoes, when is the legitimate marketing going to start?

        • That is just about what my LGS is doing though by word of mouth; Attracting (largely women and young people) who are frightened by rising property crime perpetrated by sometimes violent opiate addicts to their shop for CCW classes, training and guns. It’s multiply and mutual beneficial with some good side effects that aren’t obvious, such as all these young people who are taking up shooting and range time instead of drugs.

          In our community it’s always been understood to be extremely dangerous to burglarize an occupied house and it just keeps getting more dangerous.

        • [Are YOU afraid to go out on your own street at night?]

          Well, that’s one approach. Another is to promote the shooting sports as green, inclusive, safe, and fun.

          “Soccer mom can load the kids and equipment into the suburban, drive them to the field, and watch from the stands. Shooter mom can drive the whole family to the range, and everyone can participate.”

    • Of course they can, and do every day. Plenty of children attend safety and awareness programs presented by Eddie the Eagle every day in their schools. Plenty of youth shooting sports groups receive NRA assistance and guidance every year, too. Countless women take part in NRA women-focused seminars on self-defense, safe handling, and women-only hunts.

      I could go on here, but the bottom line is that the NRA’s reach is extensive and well received by the millions who benefit from their activities annually. Many, many of these people are “non-traditional”, in that they aren’t the infamous OFWGs of pop culture conventional wisdom. It’s more a matter of those with only a headline smattering of familiarity with the NRA, who regard it as some monolithic organization; insular, outdated, and out of touch with “regular”people.

      • ^ This.

        There are over 97,000 NRA basic firearm instructors. Over 8,000 of them are women, and the NRA is actively recruiting more. That doesn’t include over 11,000 active NRA law enforcement instructors.

        Last year there were 1,090 Friends of NRA events that raised money for 2,300 shooting sports grants.

        So get involved.

  2. “…anger, rage and hate.”

    Check, check and check.

    Shouldn’t we start referring to anti-2A uh… people as “merchants of hate”?

      • Agents of hate applies to them when any of them say they hope gun people will accidentally shoot themselves. Isn’t that a lovely thing for someone to say about ordinary people who want to protect themselves and their families?

  3. The appropriate counteroffensive has not yet been mounted by our team. Thusly the mouth-foaming statists’ existence. They are merely yelling louder than we are, ‘neath the guise of a benevolent mantle. They truly believe that they have God on their side so to speak (even though most of them have no faith entirely), and this fires them and powers them up so that they literally are ‘floating’ on their own smug sanctimonium. The comments they make – the ridiculously outrageous ones, should be collected every time they are made, because they have gone beyond the pale of mere dissent, past criticism, through crusading and into unbalanced obsession. They have become Captain Ahab. They are becoming the crazies that they accuse us of being. Simply, they should be allowed the rope with which to hang themselves. However, we have to get our stuff wired tighter. We aren’t getting our message out. We need more authoritative projection. We are allowing ourselves to be marginalized. It’s a challenge, as any effort on our part is always skewered as fanaticism and irrationality.

  4. Wherever I think of folks who want nothing for the rest of us but peace, love and understanding (ht: Elvis Costello), I think of the authoritarian statist apologists, the gun control supporters:

    “One can only hope they all end up shooting themselves accidentally with their own firearms.”

    Of course, I could be mistaken.

  5. The irony. Whenever the gun debate comes up, the first thing some of the more rabid anti-gunners suggest is that we all mess up and shoot each other, or ourselves. So much for peace and love.

    Also, from articles I’ve read on here and elsewhere, the restoration of gun rights to individuals is very important. Often, during a situation, either criminal or mental-health related, it seems the first thing to “go” is legal access to firearms. There was an article here, that I am hard-pressed to find, which details how Illinois is using the medical establishment to deny gun rights, and a commenter posted that a nurse he knew in Illinois basically said, “Well if they complain too much the first thing I’ll do is check and see if they have an FOID, and if they do, I’ll take it…”

    Also, I hate that term, “loophole”. Lawmakers may screw up a lot of things, but the laws are specifically written that way for a reason. It’s not exploitative if you work within the bounds of the law, it’s smart.

    That’s the one thing the people in the UK can’t seem to grasp. For the most part, firearm ownership here is a legal right. As much as people will go and download porn because the First Amendment allows them to do so, they are going to buy guns, because the Second Amendment allows them access to do so.

    Fox hunting is big in the UK. We find it odd and unsporting, but you don’t see US pundits writing about the “fox hunting loophole” over there.

    I’ll bite, and admit part of my impetus for obtaining a permit and purchasing firearms was motivated by the scares of 2012. I had no specific need for a weapon, but other than my lifelong interest in guns, I felt that I should definitely get my carry permit and purchase a few firearms, on the off chance it became difficult to do so. I didn’t want to turn around one day and find that the law of the land was basically “New York City”.

    • Fox hunting is big in the UK. We find it odd and unsporting, but you don’t see US pundits writing about the “fox hunting loophole” over there.

      There is no “fox hunting loophole”, for two reasons:-

      – Guns are not used in fox hunting, only horses and dogs, and anyone who used a gun or any weapon for that would be barred from whichever hunt he had joined – precisely because it is unsporting. (This is made very clear in one of Kipling’s Stalky & Co stories, In Ambush, and in Arthur Conan Doyle’s How the Brigadier Slew the Fox.)

      – Fox hunting was recently banned anyway.

      • Hello P.M.,

        Does the fox get killed and, if so, what kills it? Do the dogs get to tear it apart?

        I think foxes are beautiful animals and hate to think of them being killed for sport.

        • Yes, the dogs tear the fox apart once they catch it; the claimed cruelty is why it was banned, though it is much less cruel than some people think because it is so fast – certainly less than foxes inflict themselves (they leave many chickens maimed and facing a lingering death without even eating them, for instance). There is sometimes a little extra work getting a fox out at the end, if it goes to earth in a den; I forget what the etiquette is for that. There is much literature and poetry on the subject, if you want to google for it.

  6. Wow! What an eloquently written, tactfully worded, and well thought out article.

    Please allow me to retort with an equally eloquently written, tactfully worded, and well thought out comment…

    I have guns and there’s nothing you can do about it, na-na na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo doo.

    • RockOnHellChild,

      Your name is apt because your post was totally childish and does nothing to further gun ownership. I guess you like to help the opposition because your post could do that.

      The people who will help getting guns taken away from those of us who take them seriously and learn all we can about them and handling them in the safest of ways, are the people who are “cowboys” and childish people like you, with your speech. Also, the people who act all big and bad, saying what they would do if in such and such a situation, or how they would blow the intruder away, which are the people who seem to be just aching to, well, blow someone away and that is very disturbing to me. Those are the people we need to reach and help to grow up and take firearms seriously and they’re supposed to be on the side of the right to bear arms, but more often, they come out sounding like blowhards and irresponsible people.

      I don’t think immature people of any age are safe with firearms.

      I agree that anti-gun wackos are just that and are rabid in their zeal to deny us the right to keep and bear arms. There is no mind in operation in many of those as well.

      With rights come responsibilities. The NRA is supposed to further that mindset, but I’ve seen some videos in conjunction with the NRA that made me have to mail them to tell them they are not being responsible and one was a man from a radio program.

      People cheer on gun owners who are irresponsible with handling their guns and that actually nauseates me, so low does my heart sink and I’m thinking that with friends like this, we don’t need enemies because some of those enemies are within our own ranks.

      Grow UP!

      PS–People from other countries–Keep your noses out of our business. This is our homeland’s problem and you are not of this country! You act so superior and you’re simply NOT!

        • Meh… I’ve been called worse by better.

          And I’ve been thrown out of WAY nicer places than this.

      • Another “I support the second amendment, but” comment? Hellchild made a humorous comment in a forum where he knows he’s among friends and likeminded people and for that his right to keep and bear should be restricted? One of you isn’t very serious or committed, the other is Hellchild.

        • Ardent understands sarcasm apparently, thank you for not being a dullard, Ardent.

          I’m a vet who had multiple deployment under my belt before I was old enough legally drink or concealed carry (21 yrs of age.) I’m a father, husband, engineer, CHL holder, licensed hunter, and still maintain a gov’t security clearance, but apparently because I’m also a joker, I should be denied my rights…

          “I support the 2nd A, but… ” types, indeed.

          Nail on the head, Ardent.

  7. Angry and pissed off That they melted their firearms down and retooled for pewter beer steins…. they lash out at the only society left on this planet that retains a glimmer of hope to stop their government from absolute control over them… the rest throw rocks and burn tires in protest.

  8. It happens even hear on TTAG, how many people comment from just reading the headline alone?

    The reason a lot of media outlets give inflammatory headlines is for the fact that most people read the headline and assume the rest. They know their audience and the comments it would stir and chose that headline purposely. It is a culture war and a game and stupid are the pawns.

    • No, we’re sending the insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Syria guns so they can take over England one day. I wish someone would explain why to me.

      • There are various factions in the Muslim world that would either form terrorist organizations with the goal of carrying jihad beyond their boarders or form states that would harbor terrorists or themselves attempt to advance what are dictatorial and tyrannical goals.

        There exist within these areas groups that are not necessarily opposed to the goals of the above mentioned groups, but which disagree with them on direction, content, philosophy or even just wish to be the group in control though they have no ideological differences with these other groups.

        By supporting the weaker side in conflicts between these groups they are bolstered to the degree that they are reluctant to coalesce around a common leader and give up their intramural conflict while at the same time they are more difficult to destroy or subjugate by force.

        Maintaining and fostering factionalization among our ideological enemies and enabling them to continue to occupy themselves with what from our perspective is intramural combat while simultaneously weakening each of what are both hostile (to us) factions and distracting them from larger goals like external acts of terror or pursuit of more complex weapons are all legitimate intelligence, foreign policy and security goals of the US.

        This is why we arm the people you speak of.

  9. In my region, all inner-city residents I know own weapons. Not just one, but weapons. They must do it to survive. In some cases there are great local legal restrictions against them owning some, if not all, of the weapons they own, and certainly the way most have acquired them. They don’t care. They own weapons to protect themselves and their families. I only know this since some work for me and I have seen them transfer their weapons to under the seats of their cars before they get out their work tools for work.

  10. One point that needs stressing in these discussions: Back in the day the typical felon was someone like Al Capone. Today’s typical felon is someone like Martha Stewart.

  11. Just for any USAians who didn’t get the context, “The Guardian” is an absolutely immaculate of what the US would call ‘liberal thought’: impeccably left-wing, and constant in the belief that whatever the problem is, the fault inevitably lies with some combination of the ‘wealthy elite’, Margaret Thatcher, the United States, and/or the Elders of Zion.

    In the finest tradition of the champagne socialist, they rail incessantly about the way wicked big business refuses to hand over enough of its money as taxes to be rightfully redistributed to the poor, needy and disadvantaged… while ensuring that their own business, and its top employees, use a ‘tax efficient’ offshoring structure to minimise their own liabilities, It’s different if you’re socially virtuous, apparently…

    The day a Guardian journalist reports favourably about firearm ownership and individual freedom is the day that Lucifer is seen shopping for ice skates…

    • I don’t know where some U.S.A.ians get their prejudices about Britain (not all are guilty of it).

      The food is good, and has been for centuries. That is why a distinctive regional cuisine has never developed there; French, Italian, etc. cooking developed so as to make the most out of limited materials.

      British teeth are as good as those anywhere, now the effects of poverty stricken periods like the Great Depression have washed out, even if the culture doesn’t place the same priority on merely cosmetic dental work as some others do.

      The weather is not crappy (apart from the oddity that it is worse for machinery in winter, from cycling around freezing more than in other areas). It gives people no trouble at all, if only they are prepared for it with the right clothing and accommodation. Those arrangements need far less trouble than in many places that need several lots of handling for different seasons (storm windows? snow chains? air conditioning? who needs those? – only people in special situations).

      That only leaves high taxes, but those are not distinctively British anyway, as most countries have them; in my book, any tax rate aggregating over 25% of G.D.P. is too high even on pragmatic grounds, just from materially distorting the economy, and that’s before taking into account personal value systems like whether taxes are justifiable at all.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here