Perhaps we should start our own alternative to the NRA.

[NashvilleLefty]

Since half of NRA members oppose the NRA stance, we have a ready market. Plus, it is a true Market Approach since the NRA is basically a monopoly.

This new group could do what the NRA used to do - they could teach safety. They could offer certificates of training. They could inspect shooting ranges and certify them if they are safe. They could advocate for safer legislation.

The NRA is dead, as well they should be since they abandoned their core.

There will always be people with firearms; whether for hunting, to protect from rabid critters, or simply for hobby target shooting.

There are legitimate reasons for having a single-shot gun, but not for more than a 3-round magazine. On the other hand, in a controlled environment such as a shooting range firing a powerful weapon with a large clip can be fun! Why not restrict such fun to a shooting range?

I have no problem with Billy-Bob shooting the biggest and fastest gun with the highest mag capacity he can at the shooting range, where everything is controlled and it is certified safe. It's only when he tries to take it home and use it on real people or things that I have a problem.

[Mojorabbit]

1. I like the idea of an organization I could support

I do not like the idea of a 3 round magazine. If I (the universe forbid) ever had to use a firearm for protection, I want at least ten tries even though I am a good shot at the range.

[NashvilleLefty]

4. I'd say you're a smart man!

you at least recognize that you are not a movie character that can simply shoot the gun out of their hand with the first shot!

Although I can argue the case for 3-round or 5-round mags, I am willing to compromise at 10 rounds.

I don't like it, but 10-round mags are a lot better than 30-round mags. So I'll take it.

And I'm glad that you at least practice! Just remember, that still target in the controlled range environment does NOT equal live fire. But I think you already understand that.

That's another thing the new association needs to emphasize - just because you're good at hitting static targets in a controlled environment doesn't mean you can do a clean shot at a live, moving target in a room of innocent people.

[Mojorabbit]

14. Woman. :) nt

[Bucky]

2. From my few times at a shooting range, I didn't see a lot of "Billy Bobs" out there.

Maybe one thing this new gun organization could do is an educational outreach to let the non-gun users of the world know that most gun owners do not fit the shallow stereotypes that some proponents of gun regulation like to perpetuate.

[NashvilleLefty]

5. Now you're talking!

We need a new organization that is NOT perceived as a bunch of "Billy-Bobs".

an organization that is serious about gun use, and gun safety.

[spin]

8. The perception that the NRA is composed only of "Billy-Bobs" is fostered by the media ...

but is far from the truth.

I know a number of well educated professionals who own firearms and are NRA members. Of course I also know even more well educated professionals who own firearms and are not NRA members.

Only 4.5 million gun owners out of 80 million belong to the NRA although many will join in the next few months.

[NashvilleLefty]

11. Then we should offer them a better choice

one that does what the NRA used to do, one that does what the NRA has Promised to do.

We give them an alternative that teaches and emphasizes firearm safety. One that actually teaches rather than just helps to sell, sell, sell.

One that actually works to solve problems.

[spin]

13. I see no problem with your idea. (n/t)

[Bucky]

15. Or we could shoot them

I like your idea, but my point was that the NRA is not made up of gap toothed Cleti. It's made up of a bunch of well educated but seriously misinformed middle class people who happen to think insane things about federal and state gun policies.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

3. In theory one would think that DU would be a great place to come up with ideas...

Unfortunately no matter what you say on guns, your opinion (regardless of how objective you are with it), will be dismissed as NRA talking points or gun-grabbing hyperbole by one faction or the other.

There is a lot of name calling and self-righteousness around this issue, but very little actual discussion.

[NashvilleLefty]

7. And that is why one must have a "thick skin"

when posting on DU.

I've found DU very useful. Sometimes I agree with the majority, and I get major kudos. Sometimes I disagree with the majority, and I get trashed.

I am not so shallow that I allow some message board online to determine my opinion. But, I have found the input from this site very useful.

Yes, it is true that there has been a lot of name calling and self-righteousness around this issue, but there has been a few nuggets of of gold to be picked.

And I am used to digging through turds to find a few nuggets of gold.

It's called the Internet.

[spin]

6. I see absolutely no problem with your idea of a different group to promote gun safety. ...

However I believe that your idea of limiting firearms to only three shots is foolish and impossible to implement.

In order for your group to become a reality and attract firearm owners you have to realize that the majority of firearms in our nation hold more than 3 rounds. Even revolvers hold 5 to 10 rounds depending on the caliber.

Don't ruin what might be a good idea by asking for far too much.

[NashvilleLefty]

9. OK, 10 rounds.

Honestly, I don't see a need beyond 3 rounds. But in the spirit of compromise, I'll go 5 rounds. What? Ok, 10 - rounds, final offer!

For anyone who's ever done negotiations, you always start with a point that you know that your opponents won't accept.

So, I bid 3 and say there is no logical reason to go beyond that. Ok, I'll go 5 even though there is no reason to go beyond 3. 10? It's outrageous, but I'll take it. (BTW, 10 was what we had been willing to give up all along).

[spin]

10. At least you are willing to compromise. That's unusual today. (n/t)

[NashvilleLefty]

12. And that's what is so sad.

Both sides are so convinced that they are "right", that they basically believe "my way or the highway".

Both sides say "we need a discussion" but what they mean is "we need a discussion so I can prove my side is right".

Neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. There is no simple solution.

I think an alternative to the "pry it from my cold, dead hands" is a good start.

A START.

If it doesn't work, then we try something else. But one thing is clear - the current system is NOT working.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. I think it already exists - The Liberal Gun Club

I don't know much about them, wondering if anybody else does.

The Liberal Gun Club

[kydo]

17. Thats what I was thinking the NFAA

National Firearms Association. Ditch the nra they are not serving their members. Start a new gun org that is based on common sense.