Everyone Gets A Gun

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Can't see anything wrong with this. Still having a hard time believing this isn't from The Onion.


NRA commentator Billy Johnson this week proposed that children be forced to learn shooting skills in order to graduate as part of a plan to enact “gun-required zones” in the United States, and use taxpayer money to subsidize firearm purchases.

In a video title “Everyone Gets A Gun” that was released on Monday, Johnson complains that U.S. gun policy was focused on limiting access to firearms.

“As a country we have an education policy. Imagine if that policy was about limiting who has access to public education,” he argued. “I mean, let’s be honest, the danger in educating people to think is that they might actually start to think for themselves. Perhaps we should think seriously about who we give access to knowledge. They could use it to do a lot of damage.”

“We don’t have a U.S. gun policy. We have a U.S. anti-gun policy,” the NRA commentator continued. “Gun policy driven by people’s need for guns would seek to encourage people to keep and bear arms at all times. Maybe it would even reward those who do so. What if instead of gun free-zones we had gun-required zones?”

In order to make his plan work, Johnson said that children would need to be introduced to firearms at a young age.

“Just like we teach them reading and writing, necessary skills. We would teach shooting and firearm competency,” he explained. “It wouldn’t matter if a child’s parents weren’t good at it. We’d find them a mentor. It wouldn’t matter if they didn’t want to learn. We would make it necessary to advance to the next grade.”

Johnson also suggested that the government would have to “subsidize” the purchase of guns like it did with food, education, and health care.

“I mean, perhaps we would have government ranges where you could shoot for free or a yearly allotment of free ammunition,” he said. “Gun policy, driven by our need for guns would protect equal access to guns, just like we protect equal access to voting, and due process, and free speech.”

Johnson concluded by lamenting that even Second Amendment advocates “can’t fathom a world where we would treat guns as a need.”

Watch the video below from the NRA, broadcast July 21, 2014.



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/23/nras-everyone-gets-a-gun-plan-kids-must-pass-shooting-tests-to-advance-in-school/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
I'm at a loss, really cannot put words to desbribe how stupid this is.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,047
2,677
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
Yah! But Shooting or Gun Proficiency doesn't start with the letter "R." We can't have the three R's (reading, 'riting and 'rithmatics) and shooting. That doesn't sound right. Or we could change the acronym to what they really want: Writing, Arithmetic, Reading and Shooting. WARS for short.:rolleyes:

This outta cut a week off Basic Training. More meat for the grinder.:mad:
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,357
4,337
Gourd City
If they're handing out free guns, they need to hand out free beer, too. Because nothing goes together like guns and beer. Except maybe beer and barbecue. So free barbecue, too.




<If the sarcasm isn't evident, this tag isn't going to help.>
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
You get a gun, and you get a gun, and you get a gun! Why was Oprah giving away cars? Should should have been giving out guns.
 

556fmjoe

macrumors 68000
Apr 19, 2014
1,604
903
Teaching firearm safety in schools is a very easy and effective way to help prevent accidental deaths. Teaching shooting skills is unnecessary and probably wouldn't work in a lot of areas. I would like to see a firearm safety course added to the curriculum.
 

EvilQueen

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2013
261
21
In my own world
Do enlighten us
Watch the video.

----------

Teaching firearm safety in schools is a very easy and effective way to help prevent accidental deaths. Teaching shooting skills is unnecessary and probably wouldn't work in a lot of areas. I would like to see a firearm safety course added to the curriculum.
The local high school here runs a shooting club and has a high school and middle school shooting team. One of the high school girls is ranked #2 in the world for long distance marksmanship. She holds several world records for 1000 meter plus shooting.



With ten shot groups measuring less than 4 inches at 1,000 yards, it’s not hard to see why Samantha nearly placed highest Junior at the World Championship this summer.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
Watch the video.

----------



The local high school here runs a shooting club and has a high school and middle school shooting team. One of the high school girls is ranked #2 in the world for long distance marksmanship. She holds several world records for 1000 meter plus shooting.

Image
Club != curriculum.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
Watch the video.
Its utter idiocy. I gave up in disgust three quarters of the way through.

Its full of absurd false equivalences. Taken to its logical conclusion, this imbecile is suggesting that there really be no restrictions whatsoever on weapons ownership. Presumably this mental midget would be just fine with billionaires funding their own nuclear weapons labs and teenage boys racking machine guns in their gym lockers.

Plus he really has an annoying, whiny voice. I know thats an ad hominem criticism, but there we go.
 

556fmjoe

macrumors 68000
Apr 19, 2014
1,604
903
Watch the video.

----------



The local high school here runs a shooting club and has a high school and middle school shooting team. One of the high school girls is ranked #2 in the world for long distance marksmanship. She holds several world records for 1000 meter plus shooting.

Image
I'm going to go cradle my targets and weep quietly over their 1 MOA groups. :)

That is some seriously impressive shooting by that young lady.
 

556fmjoe

macrumors 68000
Apr 19, 2014
1,604
903
Its utter idiocy. I gave up in disgust three quarters of the way through.

Its full of absurd false equivalences. Taken to its logical conclusion, this imbecile is suggesting that there really be no restrictions whatsoever on weapons ownership. Presumably this mental midget would be just fine with billionaires funding their own nuclear weapons labs and teenage boys racking machine guns in their gym lockers.

Plus he really has an annoying, whiny voice. I know thats an ad hominem criticism, but there we go.
He suggested nothing of the sort, nor was his point that any of these measures should actually be implemented. He was making the point that guns are treated by policy in a fundamentally opposite manner than other things, such as parks, healthy food, etc, and used the examples listed in the article as a way of demonstrating this.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,104
2,162
IOKWARDI
Some of us prefer not to watch videos, with their goofy graphics, dorky talking heads and unpleasant or unctuous vocal inflections. Therewith, for those of us who like to see the actual words, here is a transcript of the video:

As a country we have an education policy. Imagine if that policy was about limiting who has access to public education. I mean, let's be honest, the danger in educating people to think is that they might actually start to think for themselves. Perhaps we should think seriously about who we give access to knowledge. They could use it to do a lot of damage.

As a country we have a far reaching public parks program. Imagine if that program was designed to limit who has access to those parks. You littered once in high school, sorry no park access for you.

As a country we have labor policies designed to ensure that people are given access to jobs regardless of gender, race, or creed. Imagine if that policy withheld certain types of jobs as only the purview of the government elite.

The point is that as a country we often write policy to protect access to something; education, parks, jobs. But one for one of the most important protections, a constitutional right, we write policy designed to limit access. Among Second Amendment supporters it's common to talk about U.S. gun policy. We worry that policies will encroach on our rights; we share our concerns about overreaching gun policy that fails to make any of us safer.

But we don't spend nearly enough time asking what is the purpose of policy and what should the purpose of gun policy be? We don't have a U.S. gun policy. We have a U.S. anti-gun policy. Our gun policies are designed around the assumption that we need to protect people from guns, that guns are bad or dangerous. But what would happen if we designed gun policy from the assumption that people need guns -- that guns make people's lives better. Let's consider that for a minute.

Gun policy driven by people's need for guns would seek to encourage people to keep and bear arms at all times. Maybe it would even reward those who do so. What if instead of gun free-zones we had gun-required zones?

Gun policy driven by our need for guns would insist that we introduce young people to guns early and that we'd give them the skills to use firearms safely. Just like we teach them reading and writing, necessary skills. We would teach shooting and firearm competency. It wouldn't matter if a child's parents weren't good at it. We'd find them a mentor. It wouldn't matter if they didn't want to learn. We would make it necessary to advance to the next grade.

Gun policy driven by the assumption we need guns would probably mean our government would subsidize it. I mean, perhaps we would have government ranges where you could shoot for free or a yearly allotment of free ammunition. Sound crazy? Think about it. Education, healthcare, food, retirement, we subsidize things we value. Gun policy, driven by our need for guns would protect equal access to guns, just like we protect equal access to voting, and due process, and free speech. Our Founding Fathers believed that we did need guns. That's why they codified our access to guns into the Constitution. But the idea of a gun policy that does justice to their intentions sounds ridiculous. What does that say about us? Even as Second Amendment advocates we can't fathom a world where we would treat guns as a need.

Our "need for guns"? Hey, I have gotten by without a gun for more than half a century, that sure seems to me to be a sad, pathetic argument. Curious that the presenter's name is "Johnson", what is that slang for, again?
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,830
Anchorage
no thanks, might work for your area, but I see plenty of teens around here that i sure as hell don't want them armed, much less be proficient with it.
So, if they find a firearm you would rather they NOT know how to safely handle it? As it is right now the only firearms knowledge most of these kids have is from games like Call of Duty.
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,830
Anchorage
Our "need for guns"? Hey, I have gotten by without a gun for more than half a century, that sure seems to me to be a sad, pathetic argument. Curious that the presenter's name is "Johnson", what is that slang for, again?
You don't think other people need firearms because you don't need them and you are poking fun at this name.

WOW you make such strong counter points it is almost mind blowing!
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Some of us prefer not to watch videos, with their goofy graphics, dorky talking heads and unpleasant or unctuous vocal inflections. Therewith, for those of us who like to see the actual words, here is a transcript of the video ...
Thank you for posting the transcript.

Every one of those things he claims is not limited ... is limited, and regulated.

His argument is based on an incorrect premise.