The NRA Is Ready For The Gun Control Fight...Are You?

You are personally responsible for those teachers and children being gunned down in a free fire zone unprotected and naked against a maniac with a gun. YOU.

Had those teachers been allowed arms and training, they would never have had to throw their unprotected bodies in front of bullets to save children from your liberal agenda.

 

I hope liberals feel an intense swell of guilt over their happiness about the sandy hook shooting.

But they won't. It's another crisis they can exploit and it makes them more happy than a kid on christmas. They can now paint the good, god-fearing christians they hate, and evil psychopaths with the same brush.

As they've tried to do for years.

 

How do you think I knew it before hand. The OP always posts from Huffpo. It's a given in every post. He/she is the resident huffpo promoter.

 

You ought to know by now that Democrats don't give a crap about their slaves in the projects. They can pull them out of their pockets any time they want to and say "go vote for me boy" and they will.

 

So what? They could have it if they wanted to. That's the point. Stop throwing straw.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. YES I WOULD! And you don't get by me with your idiotic assertion that somebody elected through subterfuge has any better judgement that any old individual on the street.

 

Because his handlers at Huffpo didn't tell him so. Now watch the duck.

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...more-popular-than-entertainment-industry?lite

 

You can uuhhhh sure all you like, but the story is still false.

 

Always bear in mind that the US is ruled, fundamentally, by Netemyahu and the NRA. Have a good day now!

 

How so?

I never said anyone was suggesting this. Please learn to read.

Yes, you could say that, and it would illustrate perfectly the shortcomings of the proposed legislation, insofar as it will not prevent dangerous and/or unstable individuals from killing innocent people, which was my point all along.

Maybe in your incredibly biased opinion.

Yes, now you are getting it. The VT shooter used two pistols to kill over 30 people, but I don't see Obama and Biden trying to ban pistols. That's called being "inconsistent" and it's indicative of an irrational thought process.

- - - Updated - - -

I know what you meant.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that was true.

 

Why not just say that you agree with our Dear Leader that his children are more important than your children?

 

I think I see your problem. You believe that the security of a free state means hunting. Just for the record, have you read the Second Amendment?

I know you are simply trolling. That cannot be helped. If you do not wish to exercise your right to you life through self defense that is certainly an option you may freely take.

Why do you believe you should have any say in my exercise of my right to self defense?

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

I am by no means at a point where I would advocate armed attacks on the government. However, I am at a point where they would have to arrest me and put me in jail/prison before I surrendered my semi-automatics.

 

The House of Saud and the AARP have far more influence on our rule than the those you mention.

 

It would? Where does the US Sup Ct say that? That's interesting.

 

The point is that the Second Amendment referred to a regulated militia. Not everyone could have their own artillery piece and drag it along with them when called up. The expectation would have been that most individuals would have been proficient with muskets and would train with them and bring them along when required. There is no unrestricted right in the Second Amendment for someone to have whatever firearm they want.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be a natural outcome of your actions for sure. You'd be in custody and you'd lose your firearms. Why not avoid the custody bit and just hand them over?

 

The Heller decsion found that the D.C. Had basically banned a entire class of weapons(handguns) that are commonly used for self-defense. They ruled that violated the 2nd amendment. The ruling protected weapons in common use for legal purposes. So yes it would take a amendment or judicial activism to change that. The former is unlikely in the near future since decisions are looked at as settled law. However truthfully they are only limited by their creativity anymore.

 

Because I am not a Lemming. I believe we stand up for what we believe in and if that includes a loss of liberty I am more than willing to be an example. If all gun owners stood with me, we would peacefully destroy those like Barack Obama's attempt to destroy our U.S. Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Heller v DC

Texsdrifter posted a link to the decision in post #90.

 

^destroying the US constitution? i sincerely hope you are not a christian conservative...i have explicit rights to practice whatever religion i like or none at all and that bunch cannot tell me otherwise. yet there they are trying to force god to be a part of everything including the government.

hi. i believe i'm ready for this debate even though I do not know much about guns. first, i support 2a for its intended literal purpose. for very good reason we need to keep the government in check by keeping a people's millitia. based on what i've read from the gun advocates, i agree that selective gun bans will probably not do much if all else stays the same. however, i have some points that i am hoping to get feedback on. admittedly these are more conceptual and less exact.

does the gun culture and the way we view guns as a part of our lives have anything to do with this? i for one think the gun culture has run out of control. obama enters office and sales soar. why? fear? as far as i know he has done nothing for or against guns until now and did not even hint at it or give any reason for people to believe he'd go after them. i have come to think that gun owners look at their guns as more than what they are and can do physically. they think their guns are protection, or power, or a defining aspect of themselves. so when they feel threatened their first thought is to keep their gun close. this is very strange to me as i don't have a gun. i think 1a is far more powerful and your voice is what you should derive protection, power, and defining qualities from, not a killing tool.

i think that a remedy for the above is to start viewing 2a and guns in general as a grave yet necessary part of our country instead of parading and celebrating them. this is because the day we have to turn guns on each other when the gov't or some organization oversteps is the saddest day in American history. it's not a happy day when we have to use the guns for their literal intended purpose. this serious sentiment would hopefully be passed from parents to their children along with firearm training if they so desire.

my second point is that the cdc's statistics show you and your family are less safe as a gun owning household. i know everyone will argue this for various reasons but if it's true the whole argument for the perceived element of protection is nonsense. i don't expect people to believe it and i didn't at first either but it makes sense. as always, the best thing to do is to cooperate. our criminals are not suicidal but pulling or flashing a gun isn't necessarily going to stop violence. they want something. now...there are special exceptions to this line of thinking. not all criminals are sane or care about their life much. also there are the crimes like rape, murder and suicide that we just want to prevent all together. rape is a no brainer. women need a way to protect themselves. murder could be a case where you need to just be a better person and not steal someone's wife, or not screw other people over intentionally. those people deserve the consequences. if you have a gun to protect yourself from the people you screw over...well that's just messed up. of course there are other reasons for murder. suicide is interesting in that the best way to do it seems to be by gunshot. you may not think that you would ever kill yourself but someone else in your family may be silently suffering and thinking of the best way to do it.

some may still want the option or ability to fight for themselves and their things even if their chances of accidentally killing someone or themself are greater than the odds they'll get robbed. i'm not saying they are in every case but i have never been robbed and neither has anyone in my family or any of my friends that i know of. maybe i live in a good area. why wouldn't you live in a good area as the primary means of protection if you have a choice? if you want to live in oakland just know that crime is higher.

my last and newest thought was posed by jon stewart on the daily show. last week he brought up how in the 90s-00s the nra was able to pacify the atf agency. apparently that agency is the body that is supposed to be enforcing a lot of the regulations that are already in place. things like dealer audits, investigations, waiting periods, background checks, etc. one of the most startling facts he showed was that 50% of illegal guns come from 1% of dealers. this is a side of the argument that i have not heard yet. any law requires good verbage but also adequate enforcement. i'll ask how this agency is supposed to enforce anything without any balls? the argument that gun bans don't work because people can get guns illegally comes to mind here. what if gun bans don't work because the atf has been declawed by the nra? they can't adequately investigate where the illegal guns are coming from or whether other rules are being followed. i have more reading to do on this so i don't expect it to go over well.

i'm open to comments. answers and reasons are good.

 

Obama is powerless to get his own Senate Democrats to vote on gun control and the constitution prevented him from enacting anything with any teeth with his executive powers. Why is anyone still discussing this. Might as well be discussing turning the moon to green cheese until the Senate actually votes on any gun control bill. Has Feinstein even submitted hers? Not that harry Reid will ever permit a floor vote on it of course. even if she does submit it will sit in committee until she has died of old age

 

An artillery piece is a crew served weapon.

It is not an individual weapon as specified in the 2nd Amendment.

But an AR-15 is an individual weapon and Americans are entitled to own one.