https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYzHzDFMXKw
Printable View
High five for Ms. Cupp, she knows her stuff....
Attachment 73195
The NRA doesn't stand up for criminals...
The NRA doesn't stand up for manufacturers..
The NRA only stands up for millions of law abiding citizens like me!
THAT is pure genius. :2thumbs: Yes indeed, high five for sure.
The NRA does a lot of good things (training, education, etc.) but their public face is that of a shill for the gun manufacturers and I think that's what makes them a 'target'. I'm a law abiding gun owning citizen (who lives in a state with probably the most gun friendly laws in the US after the carry-anywhere bill goes into effect in July) but I don't feel that the NRA represents me. Of course, maybe that's because I don't want to be grouped with Neugent, Palin, the duck gomers and the militias. :eek2:
And for what it's worth, I'll go to the ACLU before the NRA if I feel my 2nd amendment rights are being violated.
if you're wanting to stop gun crime, why in the world do you START with the law abiding citizens?
They have it in their heads that stricter access to guns means less crime. When in fact it just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns for self defense. Meanwhile the criminals will always be able to get their guns easily in the black market to use against defenseless citizens.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
So where do all these easy to get black market guns come from? And why are people afraid to get a background check when they buy a gun, maybe not so law abiding after all? I haven't seen any actual proposed gun regulations that would effect me in any way, and I have enough guns and ammo to hold off anyone short of Cliven's militia. :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by ahansen60
I know fear sells guns, and fear of not being able to buy guns sells more guns, but I think we are all being exploited by the FUD being thrown around by both sides.
Guns are icky and only law enforcement and a well regulated:rifle: militia should have them.....
I'm not a criminal and I don't deal in the black market so I wouldn't know where to steer you. However you could probably ask a ex-convict and they would be able to tell you right where to go. It would have similar traffic and channels as the drug trade. Ask anyone who's smoked weed how hard was it to find? Weed is very easy to find. Where there's demand there's people finding a way to get it to those wanting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
So, you don't know but believe it must be easy to get them? Hoo boy. What if you found out that the 'criminals' bought their guns legally? If you don't have a felony conviction you can just go buy a gun from the store much cheaper, you know. Or better yet from a gun show. Most guns in the hands of 'criminals' started out as legal guns somewhere. Many 'bad guys' with guns were 'good guys' until they pulled the trigger. You probably don't even know who 'they' are, other than non patriotic liberal socialist intellectuals. :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by ahansen60
That said, I am a gun owner with a CCP. Soon I'll even be able to carry in bars and in church where I live. I just don't have much use for tired cliches justifying more or fewer guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
So, the ACLU helped you procure your rights to obtain a CCP, buy and keep an arsenal of ammo and weapons, and to pass the recent legislation in Georgia? :ne_nau:Quote:
I have enough guns and ammo to hold off anyone short of Cliven's militia
The ACLU does more to protect all my rights than the NRA. Ask NRA board member Bob Barr and ACLU consultant. The NRA does help with the fear part, though. ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, start with the NRA for scaring people, but don't do anything about the criminals who are actually killing people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Make it harder for people who want to follow the law, and maybe in 50 years the criminals will run out of guns to steal?
Makes sense. I'll hold my breath.
Sorry, but I just can't seem to parse any sense out of the above. Are you suggesting the NRA is responsible for not prosecuting criminals? Or that the 2nd amendment is? Or the ACLU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
Or are you suggesting that the problem is criminal defense attorneys and we need vigilantes?
Other than the obvious fact that you become a criminal when yo steal a gun, what makes you think criminals use only stolen weapons?
I have purchased guns over the span of about 45 years and it's no more difficult for me now than then, except for the long lines at the checkout counter.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I just think it's a huge waste of Bloomberg's 50 millz to begin his road to happiness by targeting the folks who uphold the law.
More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less crime.
Unless you want to reference the massive shootouts that occur at every gun show and NRA convention, because of course, of all the guns there.
cchoc, I know you would like gun violence to stop just as bad as anybody else, but you must agree that it's foolish to start by attacking the registered, legal, non felon gun owners.
What I believe you are referring to as fear is actually the truth. But I agree, it is scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
The NRA wouldn't have to resort to that if people would automatically send them a generous check every year. But since they don't...
I think the biggest platform of fear mongering the NRA runs on, is we could lose the right to own firearms. This doesn't have any indication of violence.
Their call to action? Vote. It's not to rise up in the streets and resist law enforcement.
What is wrong with the NRA wanting their rights as long as they are not forcing others to go buy guns against their will?
If they were imposing on others' freedoms, then there would be a problem.
I freely admit I don't follow much, if anything, of what Bloomberg does but I expect anything he tries will have little effect in the south and west NRA or not. I don't include CA, OR or WA in the west, but the rest is pretty gun solid. GA wouldn't have joined the US without the 2nd. A lot of states generate a good chunk of revenue from hunting and related activities. I think a gun free US is a non starter, and I'd bet the NRA brain trust does too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
I see that quote thrown around a lot but have never seen any compelling evidence that supports the more guns less crime argument. Strict gun laws => more crime may as easily be be high crime => strict gun laws, but is certainly much more complex an issue than can be condensed into a slogan or sound bite.
The fact that people join and support the NRA is all fine. They have a lot of good programs and I'd much rather see people out learning how to safely handle guns and understand the consequences of using them than sitting around playing video games depicting consequence free violence of all kinds. I can't get behind the public persona of the NRA or the egregious claims they make about defending freedom, even though many swallow it and beg for more - bless their hearts. I'd have more respect for the NRA if they would push for mandatory training classes to get a CCP; in GA you just need a clean record and a checkbook.
What I do know is that if I lived somewhere I felt I needed assault weapons to defend my home I'd move, not buy more guns. But that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
But this is really the essence of the whole debate.... possessing a firearm is a RIGHT it is not a privilege. Breathing is a right, you don't need a license, or class, or restrictions to breath air. Driving a car is a privilege, which is why we have drivers education and require a licence. I believe most people do not understand exactly what a right is, or the difference between a right and privilege. Trust me, there are plenty of folks walking around that I consider a waste of good air and should not be allowed to breath. Anyhoo.... once you give up a right you will NEVER get it back, so its a slippery slope to start down and the reason many are so adamant about not letting others infringe on their rights. No where in our Constitution does it say exercising our rights are the safest, easiest, smartest or best approach, and I believe the founding fathers were well aware of that fact.
It's part of the well regulated aspect as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a 'right' to own a lot of types of weapons, yet people act like handguns are the only thing that holds this country together. The fact is people are afraid of other people and the NRA exploits that fear. 40 years ago everyone wanted a bomb shelter because they were afraid of commies, now they want a gun because they are afraid of 'bad guys'. In neither case did each person arrive at that concern on their own, they were told to be afraid by a propaganda campaign. I don't think the crime rate is lower today than it was then, but there is a lot more firepower in the hands of citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
We are all being manipulated in so many ways these days it is virtually impossible to get an objective look at anything, whether it be the news, which kind of vehicle is best, or how we should go about protecting ourselves and loved ones from harm. That's what makes the NRA no better than the ad agency that promotes a certain brand of feminine hygiene spray in my opinion.
And the Patriot Act took away more of your rights than just about anything else in recent times and people were falling all over themselves to support it.
Could I live my life happily without a gun if it came to that? Certainly; I don't hunt and have yet to find the need to shoot anyone. The one time I did get shot returning fire would have not helped the situation at all. Do I think the 2nd should be repealed? No, I don't. Guns are an ingrained part of our culture, more so even than automobiles, and I like the idea that I could harvest game if I wanted or needed to.
I college I worked at a meat packing plant and filled in a couple of times killing cattle, about 60/hr 10 hrs/day 6 days/week, so I'm not squeamish about killing animals for meat but didn't find any sport in it. When the tame 4H cows came in one of our maintenance guys wanted to call them over and kill them, just because I guess. That's a guy I was never comfortable around when he had a gun in his hand. But that's neither here nor there.
My point is that I don't buy the NRA arguments of most of the other 'founding father' nonsense that gets tossed around. They owned slaves, bathed infrequently, crapped in chamber pots, and had a whole host of other habits I have no interest in emulating, so cherry picking a few things and attaching the 'founding father' label does not impress me.
YMMV, of course. :twisted:
Well there is your problem right there.... you do not understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights.....Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
"A well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" are two separate issues as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.
It's the law of the land, we do not get to inject our personal concerns.
Attachment 73463
Not my problem, I just don't agree with SCOTUS on that nor do I believe that was what intended by the 'founders'. And yes, I do understand the constitution and the bill of rights just fine. Are you saying you agree with every Supreme Court ruling? Or do you get to inject your personal concerns on some?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Founding father nonsense? Do you realize that our government is one of the newest governments to form in the history of the world, yet it has the oldest constitution in the world? Obviously those chamber pot crapping, smelly, dirty, slave owning founding fathers knew what they were doing, and knew how important freedom is and the need to protect it. They knew that in order to maintain and preserve those freedoms the right to bear arms would need to be protected and instilled in our constitution. The 2nd amendment may seem old, out-dated and archaic, but it was designed to preserve our freedoms. And it very, very much still applies today.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Nice speech and an excellent example of the 1st amendment in action. It's also true, though, that the 2nd was put in place to help put down slave rebellions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahansen60
I simply said that not everything the founders did was golden and using founding fathers as a qualifier doesn't automatically make me agree. Sure they did a lot of good things and for that I'm grateful, but we don't live in those times nor would I want to.
You are free to make things as simple as you want, but if you read the history of the time you'll discover that not everything was as cut and dried as you'd like. If you'd read what I posted above you'd also see that I said I don't see any reason to try and abolish the 2nd amendment, so don't wear out your flag waving it in my direction, it's not required. :haha:
And if you are offended by the phase 'founding father nonsense' I didn't mean their nonsense but that people throw the phrase 'founding fathers' around to support about any point they want.
For those asking if we have the right to have "bazookas" (because they really don't know what they're called), show me where bazookas are being carried in the streets by lawful U.S. citizens and then let's talk.
Same with:
Tanks
Nuclear Warheads
and Weapons of Mass Destruction
The failure to debate logical gun ownership topics usually jumps to these items.
Kind of like when an Obama supporter is out of argument, they call you racist.
Once you can get them to stick to the topic, they end up agreeing that it's the wrong focus to concentrate on lawful citizens to cut down gun crime.
My 2 cents....
The general public should have the ability to be armed as well as the local police force. It only seems reasonable as the police and public are defending against the same threat.
FWIW- your local police force has assault rifles and high capacity magazine, among other fun toys.
Of course why let commonsense get in the way of a good gun grab.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
The 2nd doesn't say anything about what law abiding citizens were carrying on the streets of the day, but I'd bet they expected the well regulated militia to have cannons. Remember there wasn't a large standing army to protect the fledgling nation and to keep the slaves and natives in their place.
We even drive on the right so that when we whip our horses we are less likely to whip an oncoming driver. Trying to make some of our older rules and laws make sense without context is a silly exercise.
The 2nd is the law of the land and will not change in my lifetime I'm sure. Trying to make it into either an anachronism or a holy writ is even sillier, but then silly is a 1st amendment deal, and it is sacred. :)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Do you remember when the original colonists lined up to register their muskets?
Me neither....
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
FWIW- the head of the Bloomturd organizing just announced he is leaving in June.... said he was tired of fighting a losing battle.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
There was no process in place to do that sort of thing. Nor did they have the ability to trace a musket ball to a musket. Times change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Do you remember the 30 round clips the colonists had? Me neither...
Whats a 30 round clip??Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Ho-hum, pretty weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
pretty weak is claiming to have many guns and not having a clue what a clip is........Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
No, weak is getting nit picky about what people call magazines. If that's your case for me not knowing about guns then it's very weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
And, where I live, you don't even have to know what a gun is to get a carry permit more less know how to load and shoot one. ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh.... you mean you're allowed to exercise your Constitutional rights as a US citizen..... sweet!Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
USAUSAUSA
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
One of them anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk