Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, May 28, 2012

Memorial Day origination loosely connected to Civil War vets who founded NRA

The Civil War had ended and the country was looking for a way to honor the dead.  There were several false starts but the end result was today’s Memorial Day holiday.  It was primarily guns, mostly rifles that were used to kill the other side in the War Between the States.  Soldiers were recruited to fight, some with little or no real instructions on how to use their weapons.  It was a war that was put together rather hastily.

But it was a couple of Civil War veterans from New York that were concerned about the state of marksmanship in the military and who decided to do something about it.  It was 1871 when the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) was founded by Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate.  The purpose was to promote and encourage rifle shooting.  The organization’s first president was Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, also a Senator and governor of Rhode Island. 

By the way, this comes right from an NRA site. 

Their goal was to establish a rifle range that improved marksmanship, and a site was built on Long Island, NY in 1873.  But the promotion of marksmanship met opposition from some New Yorkers—probably a Michael Bloomberg ancestor—which forced the range to move to New Jersey.  They got the youth involved and this is still a cornerstone of the NRA.  We are talking about gun education here, something clearly absent with most state gun regulations today.

So where is all this going?  The site, Common Gun Sense, posted an article last week on the celebration of Memorial Day and where we are today when it comes to guns.  It talks about the “stunning” number of lives lost to gunfire in our communities.   “Every year, 100,000 Americans are shot. Of these, about 30,000 die from their injuries. This includes homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.”  And much of this can be attributed to the NRA and the gun lobby.

In the years since inception, the NRA, headed by CEO and Exec. Vice President Wayne LaPierre, has managed to turn a worthwhile movement, originally designed to promote gun education, into a bunch of power-hungry thugs whose main thrust is to put guns in the hands of every person in the U.S. and make sure they can carry them anywhere they want.  Oh, and their political appetite for power has now exceeded guns and is into other causes like immigration, etc.


NRA with blood on its guns

Memorial Day is now a celebration for all those who have served their country in war.  The time has come to establish a memorial for those who have fallen at the hands of gun freaks like George Zimmerman, now charged for the killing of Trayvon Martin.  We need a day that articulates the gun violence that is increasing in this country in a way that will illustrate to a public that has been brain-washed by the NRA that guns do kill people. 

It is interesting that the NRA initially supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 and even helped draft portions of the bill that was introduced by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut.  Then it later turned to its true nature and opposed the law.  Wayne LaPierre has served as the NRA head since 1991 and during his reign has produced the loosest gun laws ever enacted in the U.S., perhaps the world, which have resulted in a rapid increase in gun deaths.

I started documenting monthly shootings in the U.S. and resulting deaths in March; something you gun worshippers cannot argue with, and the results are frightening.  In March there were 38 shooting and 40 deaths.  Then April surged to 69 shootings and 66 deaths.  But the lunatic LaPierre raves on about the 2nd Amendment and how it protects gun owners.  Well, it is time to examine the “how” and consider completely revamping its meaning.  And now!

28 comments:

  1. The gun guys seem to forget that the NRA had nothing to do with "protecting the second amendment" for the first 100 years of its existence. It supported gun regulation during that time, and was primarily aimed at helping with gun safety and hunting. It's only when radical elements took over in the 70's that they went fringe. They don't really represent the majority of their membership any longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They don't really represent the majority of their membership any longer."

      Really? Why do their members keep sending their dues in then?

      I'm not a NRA member (never have been) but those members I do know are VERY pleased with the NRA of today.

      Delete
    2. Over 4 million people renew their memberships each year because we like giving money to an organization that doesn't represent us? Nice try but the facts don't support your lie Baldr (or should I call you Jason)

      Delete
    3. They keep sending their dues because they are brain-washed by the NRA and apparently don't know any better.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  2. Actually Baldr, the biggest amount of recruiting for the NRA happened after the Cincinnati Revolt when they changed from a Fudd organization to a Civil Rights & Constitution Defense organization. The next biggest was after the "Jackbooted Thugs" incident.

    If Facebook can be used as reference, the "likes" of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Legal Guns and Violence Policy center combined add up to 25,042 at time of this posting. Th NRA has 1,465,149 likes.

    Anti Gun politics have become irrelevant since people figured out that you guys were betting their lives on your failed policies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Miguel, it is "you guys" that have the failed policies. Because of your gun rights fanaticism, there were 66 people killed by guns in 69 shootings in the month of April alone. Gun control is coming so get used to it!

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  3. Actually the NRA operated under the mistaken belief that our government officials could be trusted to act within the confines of Constitutional rights and in the best interests of the long term security of a free republic rather than the reality of it devolving into a narcissistic oligarchy concerned only with keeping up the appearance of goodwill to the citizenry and the precepts of freedom.

    They've come a long way since supporting the 1968 GCA and the 1986 FOPA but with guidance the NRA will start supporting rights instead of supporting tyranny. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some people completely miss the fact that the NRA is a Membership based organization. It has added many members, 4.5 million+, who have molded it into the gun lobby gorilla that you see now. So it has been the membership shaping the organization not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Wayne LaPierre has served as the NRA head since 1991 and during his reign has produced the loosest gun laws ever enacted in the U.S., perhaps the world, which have resulted in a rapid increase in gun deaths"

    The CDC reports that there were 38,317 firearm related deaths in 1991, the FBI classifies 24,703 of those to be homicides. According to the CDC, in 2009, there were 31,347 firearm related deaths, a decrease of 18%. Of those, 15,399 were homicides, another decrease of 37%. It appears that these 'loosest gun laws' have resulted in lower 'gun death' and a much lower number of firearm related homicides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could throw figures back and forth all day but the fact is there were 66 people killed by guns in 69 shootings in the month of April alone. And those are figures you cannot deny.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    2. Are you kidding me?! The only way to measure the effectiveness of any given legislation is through statistic analysis.

      How convenient of you to so flippantly dismiss cold facts that prove your fear mongering is irrelevant.

      The facts are in, buddy: Gun laws have been loosening dramatically over the past 5 years, and SUPRISE, criminals are having a more difficult time preying on the innocent. Homicides have been on a steady decrease (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state)

      If you are going to vomit blind hatred, at least try and make it look intelligible. (I dare you to approve this comment.)

      Delete
    3. First of all, I'm not your buddy. Second, it's not that I don't believe in statistics, it's that I don't believe in your statistics. You people would mangle any fact to prove your point.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    4. These were not my statistics, it's information publicly available from the CDC and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. This is typical behavior from the anti rights crowd. You cling to 'reports' and 'studies' from the Joyce groups and groupies like it's the last breath of air and reject any contrary information as twisted or mangled.

      I don't think there's any way to mangle the information I provided. Deaths from one year compared to deaths of another year, so simple a gun grabber can do it.

      Delete
    5. Lucky for me, These aren't "my statistics".
      These are the exact same sources where you, and anybody else studying the topic, are pulling data from. It's all clean, cold, and concise information compiled by police crime reports and organized by the FBI.

      If "mangling facts" consists of relaying documented statistics compiled by national police reports, then yes, I mangle the hell out of them.

      At least when I make a bold statement, I back it up with a trusted source. I don't expect anyone to simply take my word for it. I don't need to embellish any of the statistics. I'll let the hard work of our nations police, medical community, and FBI do the talking for me.

      Referring to any of these sources as unreliable or inaccurate, is a convenient excuse to back up your un-grounded propaganda.

      Delete
    6. It's not whose figures they are, it's how they are interpreted that bothers me. Regardless, you need to see the following post to settle the question of whether gun control is effective:

      http://www.nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/2012/05/canada-laws-prove-that-gun-control.html

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  6. In the world today, we have lots of firearms, and EVERY attempt to keep them out of the hands of criminals fails abjectly. (much like drugs)

    Every location that has "common-sense" gun restriction has rampant gun crime, because (surprise here) criminals don't obey the law!

    England, Australia, Chicago (25 people shot on May 27 2012!) DC, LA, on and on and on.

    OTOH, guns in the hands of citizens deter crime.

    Our founding fathers understood this and incorporated it into the Bill of rights to deter crime by the federal government.

    If an inanimate object can be good or evil, guns are considered good, because they can stop an evil person from preying on an innocent citizen.

    The 100,000 shootings? The largest part of those are felon-on-felon or felon on citizen shootings.

    Since felons are not allowed to have guns already, more laws would.... be ineffective... again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you people never seem to understand is the fact that looser gun laws just put more guns on the streets, which makes it easier for gangs and other felons to arm themselves. I know you're brain-washed by the NRA but don't you have any common sense?

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  7. "Wayne LaPierre has served as the NRA head since 1991 and during his reign has produced the loosest gun laws ever enacted in the U.S., perhaps the world, which have resulted in a rapid increase in gun deaths."

    Not according to the U.S. Department of justice.
    (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm)

    US CRime Rate per 100,000 Population

    Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault
    Crime

    1991 252,153,092 758.2 9.8 42.3 272.7 433.4
    1992 255,029,699 757.7 9.3 42.8 263.7 441.9
    1993 257,782,608 747.1 9.5 41.1 256.0 440.5
    1994 260,327,021 713.6 9.0 39.3 237.8 427.6
    1995 262,803,276 684.5 8.2 37.1 220.9 418.3
    1996 265,228,572 636.6 7.4 36.3 201.9 391.0
    1997 267,783,607 611.0 6.8 35.9 186.2 382.1
    1998 270,248,003 567.6 6.3 34.5 165.5 361.4
    1999 272,690,813 523.0 5.7 32.8 150.1 334.3
    2000 281,421,906 506.5 5.5 32.0 145.0 324.0
    2001 285,317,559 504.5 5.6 31.8 148.5 318.6
    2002 287,973,924 494.4 5.6 33.1 146.1 309.5
    2003 290,788,976 475.8 5.7 32.3 142.5 295.4
    2004 293,656,842 463.2 5.5 32.4 136.7 288.6
    2005 296,507,061 469.0 5.6 31.8 140.8 290.8
    2006 299,398,484 473.6 5.7 31.0 149.4 287.5
    2007 301,621,157 466.9 5.6 30.0 147.6 283.8
    2008 304,374,846 457.5 5.4 29.7 145.7 276.7
    2009 307,006,550 431.9 5.0 29.1 133.1 264.7
    2010 308,745,538 403.6 4.8 27.5 119.1 252.3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since your figures have no headings, it is hard to understand the meaning. I do note the last year is 2010 and 2011 started with a bang. 6 killed in the January Tucson massacre, and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group counted another 1324 incidents of gun violence by just February. In April of 2012 there were 66 gun deaths from 69 shootings, all of which leads me to believe your above figures are now irrelevant.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    2. Thanks for displaying your keen analytical capabilities Jack. I guess terms like "Crime Rate per 100,000 Population" and figuring out which column goes with the "Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault" is a bit much to ask. You could always go look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report yourself. The facts are CLEAR, gun ownership has greatly increased as all crime including firearms crime has decreased. Those are FACTS, not conjecture. Claiming that increased firearms ownership is a causal factor in crime reduction is questionable (correlation does not equal causation) but claiming that firearms incite crime is simply fraudulent and unfounded.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the point is that I wouldn't waste my "analytical capabilities" on any drivel you provided. As I said to another commentor, you people would mangle any fact to prove your point.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    4. You were wrong when you said there was a "rapid increase in gun deaths" since 1991. Data is easily available that shows a consistent downward trend in all forms of violent crime over the last 20 years despite 'the loosest gun laws ever enacted in the U.S., perhaps the world'.

      I'll let the readers decide who is trying to 'mangle any fact to prove your point'?

      Delete
    5. Not exactly. The figures you mention that I have seen show only slight decreases in violent crime but not gun related. Besides, you will see significant increases in gun deaths when later figures are released. I started documenting shootings across the U.S. in March and April and in just those two months there were 114 dead from 118 shootings. April had a 37.5% increase over March. These are figures you can't argue with.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    6. Your right, we can't argue with personal findings. That's convenient for you. I guess we'll just have to wait until the OFFICIAL reports are published.

      Delete
    7. Here's a report you can't deny. Since march I have been carefully documenting shootings/deaths/wounded and posting reports on a monthly basis:

      http://www.nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/2012/06/may-shootings-in-us-show-astonishing.html

      Those numbers are pretty hard to argue with.

      You're dealing with out of date figures; Philadelphia police report shootings and homicides are up in 2012. I imagine we will be hearing many more of these soon, also covering 2011.

      Better get used to it!

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  8. This article is intentionally leaving out key details to the statistics it provides in order to mislead the readers.
    In 2007 there were 31,224 firearm related deaths.
    17,352 (55.6%)of these deaths were suicide-by-gun
    12,632 (40.5%)of these deaths were homicides.

    Are we to believe that people who choose to end their own life wouldn't choose another alternative should guns be unavailable?

    Am I supposed to feel safer stripped of my firearms when over 12,000 innocent people are killed annually by criminals?
    Please explain to me how stripping me of my firearms would serve to better protect me against the REAL thugs, toting illegal guns in the streets of my city.

    Please, for one moment, take an honest look at this topic. Criminals, thugs, rapists, and muggers have no problem acquiring weapons. They do so with terrifying ease from the community they are brought up in.
    Writing laws on a piece of paper will not stop these people from acquiring the tools of their trade. These laws will not protect me. Restrictive gun laws will place my safety in the hands of the police, who are not required to protect the safety of "individual citizens". Many civil court cases have proven this.

    Please try to see past the misleading propaganda (from BOTH sides of the argument) and look at the unchanging facts.
    -there are millions of unregistered guns flowing through the criminal community in the United States.
    -making it illegal to own guns is only going to disarm the people who aren't responsible for the homicide rate in this country.

    For instance, the "Stop and Frisk" program in New York has created much controversy, but the high number of illegal weapons found can't be denied. Over 7,000 illegal weapons were discovered concealed on the people stopped in just one year. (http://ccrjustice.org)

    It would appear as though banning conceal & carry permits in New York hasn't stopped criminals from doing it, and it certainly hasn't lowered their shooting statistics.

    Who are these restrictive gun laws catering to? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent comment. But you do make my point by indicating, "there are millions of unregistered guns flowing through the criminal community in the United States." Yes, there are, and the reason for this is loose gun laws that put guns in the hands of anyone, allowing them to take them anywhere they want. Loose gun laws kill people.

      And as far as suicide and guns are concerned, you might want to look at my following post: http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/2012/05/have-you-considered-suicide-if-so-you.html

      55% of suicides use guns, no doubt due to the ease in which they are acquired. And yes, I think they might choose another method but gun are tjheir first choice.

      Thanks for the comment.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    2. Loose gun laws DO NOT kill people. Human beings are a naturally violent species. Hundreds of years of history documents our savagery. Before guns were invented, people used rocks, knifes, poison, and fire to aid in the killing of other human beings.
      It is cliched, yes, but it is people that kill other people.

      Britain, for example, has managed to clear most of the guns from the community. What happens next? An influx of stabbings, of course. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/487675-evidence-of-rise-in-fatal-stabbings

      Does the sharp increase of violent knife attacks have anything to do with the legislation attached to knife ownership? This is getting ridiculous. I would much rather rely on a well crafted tool to defend myself than hope my knife wielding attacker isn't as strong as me physically.

      Guns level the playing field. They are what allows an old woman, or anyone of diminishing strength for that matter,to protect themselves against opponents of great physical strength.

      I am straying from my original point.
      Guns are merely a tool. Tools can be dangerous, but not evil. At least the "tool" in question levels the playing field.
      It is completely irrelevant whether or not a suicide case involves a gun. Guns are not evil because a sad teenager decided to shoot himself instead of cutting his wrists.

      Delete

Nasty Jack is no longer accepting comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.