The NRA are seen as extremists, and they are, they don't want to give an inch, because the anti gun crowd will ask for a mile. The NRA leans too far one way, just as our classification system and firearms laws have gone too far in the other direction. I personally would like to regulations fall s0mewhero in between, but once the NRA gives some ground, the anti's will see this as weakness, and try for much more. What I really find so disappointing is that we have much more restrictive laws, and yet the courts don't impose harsh sentences on the violators. It seems like in the majority of cases where I read about crimes being committed where firearms are present, the accused have firearms prohibitions. Why even have such strict regulations, if the courts won't hand out meaningful sentences? The Stanley case is a prime example, the occupants of the vehicle had a loaded firearm, even though they were prohibited from owning firearms. As well, they were impaired while in possession of a firearm, which is also an offense.Given how often this kind of thing happens, what value are our firearms regulations? And if the USA is going to treat violators the same way, how will more regulations help them?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|