Seeking Alpha

Finding overlapping viewpoints from the gun control lobby and the NRA is exceedingly difficult,...

Finding overlapping viewpoints from the gun control lobby and the NRA is exceedingly difficult, but one area that stands a fighting chance of seeing some compromised reform could be rules (federal and local) governing gun shows and background checks. Though the NRA won't say publicly it endorses tighter rules, analysts speculate that behind closed doors the issue could be on the table.
From other sites
Comments (14)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9744) | Send Message
     
    129 million voters...13.7 million recreational hunters...4.2 million NRA members
    11 Jan 2013, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    [I'm speaking purely @ realpolitik, not advocating a position]

     

    What you say may be true, but those NRA members are fanatical and are sure to pounce hard on any politicians that "try to take my guns away" and CAN be single issue voters, whereas

     

    The pro gun control movement has no cohesive and sustained drive, is dependent upon converting voters who care a lot more about other issues.

     

    Prediction -- this flare up re: gun control will peter out too, although something superficial might happen in the name of "doing something about it"
    11 Jan 2013, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    What the gun control lobby doesn't have and has never had is anything remotely resembling evidence that tighter gun control laws do a single blessed thing to prevent incidents such as the one in Connecticut. In fact, attacks of this nature almost invariably take place in locations where gun control laws are the most draconian. But don't let the facts get in the way of your biases.
    11 Jan 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9744) | Send Message
     
    Out of the 4.2 million NRA members..only 1 million do not support
    background checks on all potential gun buyers....
    12 Jan 2013, 03:22 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    A few facts on the subject (instead of emotions for a change):

     

    http://bit.ly/SoQJ4j
    11 Jan 2013, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    As good a point as that is, I'm just going to leave this here:

     

    "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."

     

    For those who question what a Militia is, the US Militia code clearly states it to be both organised and unorganised groups, i.e. individuals.

     

    Right, back to investing.
    11 Jan 2013, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Given that the founders wanted individuals to have the ability to be armed enough to protect themselves from the government, we need to update this to today's world.

     

    To protect itself from the U.S. military, any individual should have the right to own tanks, warplanes, battleships, armed drones, and thermonuclear weapons.
    11 Jan 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, I forgot cyberwarfare. Any US citizen should be able to hack into, and disable DoD systems without being prosecuted.
    11 Jan 2013, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    That's what the amendment states, yes, though more practically you don't really need nukes. They're no good for a rebellion. It doesn't state "may have small arms".

     

    Private warships, as well as ownership of heavy weaponry, wasn't unknown at that time. If anyone knew how rebellions were run, they did.
    11 Jan 2013, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    Tactical nukes might be useful to take out large bases
    11 Jan 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Losing Paper While Gaining ...
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
     
    Fair point. Lets hope it never gets to that.
    11 Jan 2013, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    Oh, I almost forgot...the White House may indeed have one area of agreement with the NRA on this subject, but it's not the one being wishcast for in the blurb above:

     

    http://wapo.st/SoRkTq
    11 Jan 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • cmsdrizzt
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Tricky I would almost agree with you except we have an very serious ideologue in the White House and an Attorney General who by all accounts was leaving and now has decided to stay on. I hate to say this but I believe this will be an all out attack on the 2nd Amendment. It will not be a frontal assault as they would lose that battle. It is going to be sneaky and backdoor for the next 4 years. Culminating in a vicious attack if they ever get 66 Senators or 51% of the House of Reps. Good bet is gun sales will exceed supply for at least the next 6 months and I am putting a bigger bet on 4 years of continued sales and maybe even growth if manufacturers can up their production levels. Watch out for the off brand AR-15's that will flood the market soon.
    11 Jan 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • Joshua6thBook
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    One thing that is manufactured in the USA and Obama/Biden wants to ban it.
    14 Jan 2013, 11:44 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector