Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Saiwania]

How viable and profitable would a "gun shooting" business be in countries with stricter gun control? The draw as I envision it, would be to allow paying customers/civilians to shoot/use all the various illegal/highly regulated weaponry that exists in a controlled setting.

There would be armed guards supervising so that the person can't just turn around and misuse the weapon or try to escape with it. They won't be allowed to own the weapon or possess it for longer than the time they rent it for at the range, but the whole point would be to enable an avenue for the general public to experience all the "cool" weaponry firsthand without having to be police/military.

The business model is that the buyer will pay the full cost of the ammo that will be shot along with some markup to enable profits and to give the government a healthy cut of that money to allow dangerous weaponry to be used in such a secure setting. And the buyer will perhaps sign a waiver acknowledging that they accept any risks and expected behavior and so on.

I don't see it as successful in that the demand is too elastic, it isn't like a grocery store where people need to go there. But on the flipside, there are probably plenty of people who'd like a limited time frame to have some fun on the range with something that'd normally not be in their life. So it can feature as part of many bucket lists for what people want to experience as part of a vacation or excursion.

If someone wants to fire a real RPG at a tank, this can or perhaps should be arranged provided it can be made as low risk as it can be if someone spends enough money on it to satisfy all stakeholders. This could be a boon for tourism and make gun control not seem so bad if there is a legal outlet to use but not own if a gun control country doesn't want it in circulation. If people use the "best" weaponry they can afford, they won't be so curious enough about it anymore as to pine for it as badly.

We have to anticipate that Biden will win this year and that the Democrats will pass gun control of some form the next time they hold a majority of government which appears to be the case with the GOP collapsing from the Trump era going badly.

[Germanic Templars]

How viable and profitable would a "gun shooting" business be in countries with stricter gun control? The draw as I envision it, would be to allow paying customers/civilians to shoot/use all the various illegal/highly regulated weaponry that exists in a controlled setting.

There would be armed guards supervising so that the person can't just turn around and misuse the weapon or try to escape with it. They won't be allowed to own the weapon or possess it for longer than the time they rent it for at the range, but the whole point would be to enable an avenue for the general public to experience all the "cool" weaponry firsthand without having to be police/military.

The business model is that the buyer will pay the full cost of the ammo that will be shot along with some markup to enable profits and to give the government a healthy cut of that money to allow dangerous weaponry to be used in such a secure setting. And the buyer will perhaps sign a waiver acknowledging that they accept any risks and expected behavior and so on.

I don't see it as successful in that the demand is too elastic, it isn't like a grocery store where people need to go there. But on the flipside, there are probably plenty of people who'd like a limited time frame to have some fun on the range with something that'd normally not be in their life. So it can feature as part of many bucket lists for what people want to experience as part of a vacation or excursion.

If someone wants to fire a real RPG at a tank, this can or perhaps should be arranged provided it can be made as low risk as it can be if someone spends enough money on it to satisfy all stakeholders. This could be a boon for tourism and make gun control not seem so bad if there is a legal outlet to use but not own if a gun control country doesn't want it in circulation. If people use the "best" weaponry they can afford, they won't be so curious enough about it anymore as to pine for it as badly.

We have to anticipate that Biden will win this year and that the Democrats will pass gun control of some form the next time they hold a majority of government which appears to be the case with the GOP collapsing from the Trump era going badly.

So something like this: https://www.drivetanks.com/

but just small arms only.

[Zurkerx]

In yet the most aggressive move to date against the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York AG seeks to dissolve the NRA in a lawsuit, accusing its leaders of self-dealing that caused $64 million in losses.

This is at the conclusion of a 18 month investigation into fraud. Expect Conservatives/Gun Rights Activists calling this move bullshit while Gun Control Advocates will cheer for it. If the accusations are true, the NRA is toast and could set back the gun rights movement for years. Either way, the NRA has been struggling these last few years, especially with fundraising.

[Novus America]

In yet the most aggressive move to date against the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York AG seeks to dissolve the NRA in a lawsuit, accusing its leaders of self-dealing that caused $64 million in losses.

This is at the conclusion of a 18 month investigation into fraud. Expect Conservatives/Gun Rights Activists calling this move bullshit while Gun Control Advocates will cheer for it. If the accusations are true, the NRA is toast and could set back the gun rights movement for years. Either way, the NRA has been struggling these last few years, especially with fundraising.

Well even if the accusation 4 executives did engage in self dealing, I doubt a court will call for the dissolution of the whole organization, especially when it seems blatantly political (the AG involved called the NRA a terrorist organization fir backing gun rights).

But it certainly is a problem. The NRA has a lot of flaws and needs reform, but it is still a very important civil rights organization. Hopefully the judges involved handle it well, and also the AG involved should be investigated and fired if it is found she is doing this just to harass and organization whose politics she disagrees with.

[Zurkerx]

In yet the most aggressive move to date against the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York AG seeks to dissolve the NRA in a lawsuit, accusing its leaders of self-dealing that caused $64 million in losses.

This is at the conclusion of a 18 month investigation into fraud. Expect Conservatives/Gun Rights Activists calling this move bullshit while Gun Control Advocates will cheer for it. If the accusations are true, the NRA is toast and could set back the gun rights movement for years. Either way, the NRA has been struggling these last few years, especially with fundraising.

Well even if the accusation 4 executives did engage in self dealing, I doubt a court will call for the dissolution of the whole organization, especially when it seems blatantly political (the AG involved called the NRA a terrorist organization fir backing gun rights).

But it certainly is a problem. The NRA has a lot of flaws and needs reform, but it is still a very important civil rights organization. Hopefully the judges involved handle it well, and also the AG involved should be investigated and fired if it is found she is doing this just to harass and organization whose politics she disagrees with.

I agree: these four individuals should be ordered to pay back the money, but don't dissolve the organization; reform it instead. Let's hope they do handle it well though keep in mind, this is New York, one of the more Democratic States out there. As for the AG, yeah, there's definitely political bias against the movement, especially when you call said organization a terrorist one but I doubt she would be fired as well.

[Novus America]

Well even if the accusation 4 executives did engage in self dealing, I doubt a court will call for the dissolution of the whole organization, especially when it seems blatantly political (the AG involved called the NRA a terrorist organization fir backing gun rights).

But it certainly is a problem. The NRA has a lot of flaws and needs reform, but it is still a very important civil rights organization. Hopefully the judges involved handle it well, and also the AG involved should be investigated and fired if it is found she is doing this just to harass and organization whose politics she disagrees with.

I agree: these four individuals should be ordered to pay back the money, but don't dissolve the organization; reform it instead. Let's hope they do handle it well though keep in mind, this is New York, one of the more Democratic States out there. As for the AG, yeah, there's definitely political bias against the movement, especially when you call said organization a terrorist one but I doubt she would be fired as well.

True, although the NRA will probably appeal it through the federal courts where it will have more luck.

Unfortunately you are correct on that AG, the notoriously corrupt and hyper partisan regime in Albany will not actually do the right thing.

[Risottia]

If the accusations are true, the NRA is toast and could set back the gun rights movement for years

I thought the SCotUS would offer proper protection for the gun ownership rights enough?

[Cantelo]

Oof it's been a while since I've posted.

I just hope the pandemic ends soon-ish or gets to a point where I can go to a range and not worry about the people around me.

[Novus America]

If the accusations are true, the NRA is toast and could set back the gun rights movement for years

I thought the SCotUS would offer proper protection for the gun ownership rights enough?

Not necessarily. By that argument we do not need the NAACP because the courts will just handle things.

Unless you fight and lobby for your rights, you are at risk of losing them. You need good lawyers to go to court, you need organizations to push the cases, you also need to actively lobby for good laws, not just hope the courts invalidate the bad ones.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's purely political. Wells Fargo did worse than having the bosses skim some money off of the books, yet nobody is trying to shut them down...

[Grinning Dragon]

Wayne L, should have been shown the door years ago. I've read over the years that there is a movement within the NRA to restructure more heavily toward pure 2nd Amendment views, but WL seems to get in the way, Marion Hammer certainly doesn't help matters much either.
FPC, GOA and a few others have been doing most of the court battles and or driving pro 2nd Amendment legislation more so the the NRA within the last 10yrs, weakening the NRA will only cement GOA/FPC rise to what the NRA former had in terms of being a powerful organization.
I also agree with 2Jerseys here, it's all political.

[Major-Tom]

If Letitia James can find tangible evidence of widespread fraud and use that in her prosecution of the NRA, then more power to her. It’s probably politically motivated, but if the evidence is there to prosecute, I can’t exactly get livid. Because, really, as much as I’d like not to see the NRA have to go down, that organization isn’t the end all be all of gun advocacy, and I’d hope another group, perhaps one that’s more financially responsible, would take its place.

[Novus America]

If Letitia James can find tangible evidence of widespread fraud and use that in her prosecution of the NRA, then more power to her. It’s probably politically motivated, but if the evidence is there to prosecute, I can’t exactly get livid. Because, really, as much as I’d like not to see the NRA have to go down, that organization isn’t the end all be all of gun advocacy, and I’d hope another group, perhaps one that’s more financially responsible, would take its place.

If she can find evidence those four executives did engage in illegal behavior, she should go after those four individuals. Not a use it as an excuse to try to dissolve the whole organization which is much more than those 4 people.

That is the problem. That she is trying to use it as an excuse to destroy a whole organization just because she hates its political viewpoint.

If those four individuals are guilty make them return the money they illegally took, van those 4 from running a nonprofit, but the organization should be allowed to elect new leadership and continue on.

Dissolving a 5 million person organization because 4 are guilty is absurd, and without precedent.
Hopefully any court will see that.

And if she is engaging in politically motivated harassment of political organizations she does not like she should be disciplined.

[Grinning Dragon]

NRA has filed a counter suit, and the NSSF has issued a public statement condemning the AG suit.

[Genivaria]

Hopefully this will lead to a less extremist and politically biased gun group taking center stage but I somehow doubt it.
Trying to sue the NRA is like trying to sue the Tobacco industry, they have more money than you.

[Major-Tom]

If Letitia James can find tangible evidence of widespread fraud and use that in her prosecution of the NRA, then more power to her. It’s probably politically motivated, but if the evidence is there to prosecute, I can’t exactly get livid. Because, really, as much as I’d like not to see the NRA have to go down, that organization isn’t the end all be all of gun advocacy, and I’d hope another group, perhaps one that’s more financially responsible, would take its place.

If she can find evidence those four executives did engage in illegal behavior, she should go after those four individuals. Not a use it as an excuse to try to dissolve the whole organization which is much more than those 4 people.

That is the problem. That she is trying to use it as an excuse to destroy a whole organization just because she hates its political viewpoint.

If those four individuals are guilty make them return the money they illegally took, van those 4 from running a nonprofit, but the organization should be allowed to elect new leadership and continue on.

Dissolving a 5 million person organization because 4 are guilty is absurd, and without precedent.
Hopefully any court will see that.

And if she is engaging in politically motivated harassment of political organizations she does not like she should be disciplined.

I'm not denying the underlying political motive, I'm kinda just shrugging my shoulders because this was bound to happen. The gun lobby is pretty damn powerful, and with that, comes the inevitable corruption. I suspect NRA can fight this one, but regardless of the outcome, I hope we can see grassroots gun advocacy groups gain some more steam and some more leverage in order to curb some of the excesses and corruption that is admittedly pretty bad within the NRA.

[Grinning Dragon]

Hopefully this will lead to a less extremist and politically biased gun group taking center stage but I somehow doubt it.
Trying to sue the NRA is like trying to sue the Tobacco industry, they have more money than you.

NRA is hardly extremist; as to being politically biased, well I guess to a point since they are for 2nd Amendment rights.

[Galloism]

If Letitia James can find tangible evidence of widespread fraud and use that in her prosecution of the NRA, then more power to her. It’s probably politically motivated, but if the evidence is there to prosecute, I can’t exactly get livid. Because, really, as much as I’d like not to see the NRA have to go down, that organization isn’t the end all be all of gun advocacy, and I’d hope another group, perhaps one that’s more financially responsible, would take its place.

If she can find evidence those four executives did engage in illegal behavior, she should go after those four individuals. Not a use it as an excuse to try to dissolve the whole organization which is much more than those 4 people.

That is the problem. That she is trying to use it as an excuse to destroy a whole organization just because she hates its political viewpoint.

If those four individuals are guilty make them return the money they illegally took, van those 4 from running a nonprofit, but the organization should be allowed to elect new leadership and continue on.

Dissolving a 5 million person organization because 4 are guilty is absurd, and without precedent.
Hopefully any court will see that.

And if she is engaging in politically motivated harassment of political organizations she does not like she should be disciplined.

Also, prison might be appropriate. We go way too soft on white collar crime.

[Genivaria]

Hopefully this will lead to a less extremist and politically biased gun group taking center stage but I somehow doubt it.
Trying to sue the NRA is like trying to sue the Tobacco industry, they have more money than you.

NRA is hardly extremist; as to being politically biased, well I guess to a point since they are for 2nd Amendment rights.

Except when the gun owner in question is black or non-Republican but sure.
Strange how when black gun owners are gunned down by police the NRA goes quiet.

[Genivaria]

If she can find evidence those four executives did engage in illegal behavior, she should go after those four individuals. Not a use it as an excuse to try to dissolve the whole organization which is much more than those 4 people.

That is the problem. That she is trying to use it as an excuse to destroy a whole organization just because she hates its political viewpoint.

If those four individuals are guilty make them return the money they illegally took, van those 4 from running a nonprofit, but the organization should be allowed to elect new leadership and continue on.

Dissolving a 5 million person organization because 4 are guilty is absurd, and without precedent.
Hopefully any court will see that.

And if she is engaging in politically motivated harassment of political organizations she does not like she should be disciplined.

Also, prison might be appropriate. We go way too soft on white collar crime.

Agreed.

[Genivaria]

While I'm not a fan of the NRA I do see the point some are making about outright abolishing the NRA to be going too far, if anything the corruption of 4 of its leaders should lead to an audit of the NRA not its abolition.

[Asle Leopolka]

While I'm not a fan of the NRA I do see the point some are making about outright abolishing the NRA to be going too far, if anything the corruption of 4 of its leaders should lead to an audit of the NRA not its abolition.

The NRA turned their backs on gun owners a long time ago and it's incredibly clear they only serve to support the manufacturers. The 2AF and GOA are much better organizations and actually care about gun rights as they relate to people.

[The Chuck]

While I'm not a fan of the NRA I do see the point some are making about outright abolishing the NRA to be going too far, if anything the corruption of 4 of its leaders should lead to an audit of the NRA not its abolition.

The NRA turned their backs on gun owners a long time ago and it's incredibly clear they only serve to support the manufacturers. The 2AF and GOA are much better organizations and actually care about gun rights as they relate to people.

That is true though the NRA is the biggest of the bunch currently so for us 2A folks we need to stay steady on course together to keep punching above our weight and making sure Washington is kept in check.

[Novus America]

The NRA turned their backs on gun owners a long time ago and it's incredibly clear they only serve to support the manufacturers. The 2AF and GOA are much better organizations and actually care about gun rights as they relate to people.

That is true though the NRA is the biggest of the bunch currently so for us 2A folks we need to stay steady on course together to keep punching above our weight and making sure Washington is kept in check.

Besides they are not mutually exclusive. It is not like the NRA precludes the existence of the GOA and 2AF. Each of the three have good parts and bad parts, this we should hope all three remain strong. And improve.

And we cannot turn on each other, we must stand together or hang separately, the second amendment is under serious attack, we must defend it with everything we have.

[The Chuck]

That is true though the NRA is the biggest of the bunch currently so for us 2A folks we need to stay steady on course together to keep punching above our weight and making sure Washington is kept in check.

Besides they are not mutually exclusive. It is not like the NRA precludes the existence of the GOA and 2AF. Each of the three have good parts and bad parts, this we should hope all three remain strong. And improve.

And we cannot turn on each other, we must stand together or hang separately, the second amendment is under serious attack, we must defend it with everything we have.

^ agreed.