Turns out liberal states, not conservatives ones, are the ones in favor of personal freedoms and less intrusive government.
This is a nice step in the right direction, though. Shame about the DEA.
Reagan started modern gun control legislation, because Black Panthers were exercising their rights to open carry.
I remember several years ago there were self-defense classes hosted by gay men, for other gay people in my city. Pre gay-marriage and post Matthew Shepard, obviously. My recollection was that it was entirely the gay community and no NRA outreach.
It would dramatically improve my opinion of the NRA to learn that they sponsored or materially supported such an effort.
I don't know if there are any specific outreach programs. I know they have youth programs and recently started some geared towards women. Generally these distinctions in training are made if there's enough demand to form a new training program and also if the topics would be sufficiently different. For example, the youth training would be about basic safety and marksman ship. Women can join the same classes as men, but the women's course covers different defensive tactics based on general size and strength differences as well as topics like carrying in a purse. The NRA sets the curriculum, but the actual training is provided by a certified instructor. These instructors and the businesses they are affiliated perform their own outreach. Here's an example of outreach after the Pulse attack - https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-group-offering-f....
My experience at events has generally been that everyone is welcome. There can be an odd person or two who have personal beliefs which are biased, but the groups as a whole are welcoming. I don't like to make assumptions about people, and I also don't go around asking everyone their business - so I have no way of knowing if the people I've met are hetero, LGBTQ, or any other personal traits. What I can say, is that I've met people whom others might have stereotyped as being LGBTQ (whether they were or not) and were not treated any differently. This has been my observation when it comes to other personal traits as well. The only trait that I know of that will land some incendiary comments might be political opinions supporting candidates which are gun control supporters.
Edit: The negative side of the NRA from an LGBTQ perspective would be their support of pro-gun candidates may incidentally be supporting a candidate who's other policies may negatively impact the LGBTQ community.
The similarly is just as that isn’t the same Democrat party as today, neither is the NRA.
The NRA supporting some specific gun control schemes is what caused their coup.
The NRA never supported or advocated bump stock bans. End of story really.
They realized like everyone else this wasn’t a hill to die on and didn’t fight too hard, but did fight a little. Bump stocks were “legal” not by a law or any official regulation, only by the ATF’s previous judgment. The ATF, NFA Tech branch specifically was able at any time to change their mind on this, and that was the reality everyone knew. This is how the ATF operates, “judgments” they often contradict themselves on, not law. Bump stocks were a hot topic for a month and the only supporters that were worth listening to were arguing on grounds of the ATF ability to “determine”, not that they were fans of the product.
In the gun world, no one liked bump stocks. So no one was really going to fight for them.
Less state related, but still state tolerated... there have been schools that fire professors for minor speech related issue (the nega nega nega incident for example). Or restrict some political movements/organizations in schools while allowing others to be promoted (look at differences in (in)tolerance of NRA and BLM).
The point I'm trying to make is that people tend to have "personal freedom" blind spots that encompass everything they don't personally care about.
Going looking for expensive power tools in unattended work vehicles to pawn because you're desperate for your next fix or driving drunk sure sounds like "harming others" to me.
I am well aware that that is the exception and not the rule. The same is true for guns and explosives. Most guns will never be fired at anyone, they will go home, trunk, range, trunk, home, repeat or they will sit in a closet collecting dust. Pretty much all non-commercial explosive use in non-warring nations is for entertainment (anvil tossing and the like).
You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
Shooting people is still illegal
>You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
You can get opioids and cocaine but not without jumping through a few hoops with doctors.
If you hurt someone or something using explosives, even if it was a complete accident and in no way foreseeable, and even if the person or thing was damaged because of /their/ negligence you are automatically 100% at fault as the person who set off the explosive. Because explosives are considered so dangerous that whomever uses them must be expected to take extraordinary precaution.