If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[Spoonman]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

hey i have an idea, let's rewrite the constitution because of one nut. what the hell is wrong with you people?

They are suffering from a grave mental disorder: Progressivism.

lets hope history repeats itself. the last time a gun ban was put into place the republicans took back both the house and senate for the first time in 50 years

 

[PredFan]

Poll Says Gun-Rights Supporters Fund Their Cause; Opponents Don't : It's All Politics : NPR

"But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals," Pew noted. "Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online."

The Poor GOP will be on the wrong side of History again.

I know you are a liberal, and by definition, you aren't that bright, but you might understand this: we are a country based on the "Rule of Law" and not the "Rule of Man". That way we cannot simply use the popular vote to take away the rights and liberties of others.

Hopefully, that isn't too complicated for you.

 

[PredFan]

hey i have an idea, let's rewrite the constitution because of one nut. what the hell is wrong with you people?

They are suffering from a grave mental disorder: Progressivism.

lets hope history repeats itself. the last time a gun ban was put into place the republicans took back both the house and senate for the first time in 50 years

Unfortunately, this time, the ignorant and lazy outnumber the smart and productive so i don't hold out much hope.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Poll Says Gun-Rights Supporters Fund Their Cause; Opponents Don't : It's All Politics : NPR

"But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals," Pew noted. "Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online."

The Poor GOP will be on the wrong side of History again.

Says he who gleefully uses the blood of 20 schoolkids to advance his agenda against the rights of the law abiding.

You don't care about those kids or about saving others - you just want to restrict the right to arms as much as possible.

 

[Pogo]

Poll Says Gun-Rights Supporters Fund Their Cause; Opponents Don't : It's All Politics : NPR

"But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals," Pew noted. "Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online."

The Poor GOP will be on the wrong side of History again.

Says he who gleefully uses the blood of 20 schoolkids to advance his agenda against the rights of the law abiding.

You don't care about those kids or about saving others - you just want to restrict the right to arms as much as possible.

I thought you ran away. Twice.

What is it with you, nothing but drive-by shooting ad hominem with a prefab paste of the phrase "happily uses the blood of 20 schoolkids" on everybody, and then run away like a little girl?
Look, if you're not prepared to defend your words, don't fling them. We shoot back here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are suffering from a grave mental disorder: Progressivism.

lets hope history repeats itself. the last time a gun ban was put into place the republicans took back both the house and senate for the first time in 50 years

Unfortunately, this time, the ignorant and lazy outnumber the smart and productive so i don't hold out much hope.

Nothing passes unless the GOP house allows it.
With any luck, they also remember what happened in 1994.

 

[Nosmo King]

You have yet to sugest anything that could possibly improve the situation. All your BS boils down to the demand everyone else should cater to your paranoia and make things easier for those who commit violent crime. YOU are the menace to public safety and your continued whining is getting really old. Feel fee to try to grow a pair.

I suggested stricter background checks and they were roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the gun show loophole and it was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the straw man purchasers and that was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the sale, manufacture, distribution and importation of high capacity magazines and guess what? That was roundly rejected.

No gun enthusiast has put forth ANY solutions. That leads me to this unfortunate conclusion: gun enthusiasts do not see any problem with gun violence, perhaps even they welcome it. What else is anyone to think?

The fact of the matter is... guns do not kill people... people kill people.

No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

Tell me, of the recent mass killings how many of those were members of the NRA? How many had CHL's?

I concede the obvious: No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

But that does little to stem the tide of gun violence. Cain killed Abel but he did not use a gun. Adam lanza killed 26. If Cain had a gun, it's possible he could have turned that gun on all of Gods created humans and we would have no history of that because no one would survive to write it. People are going to kill one another.

But should we have available tools that make it possible to mow down a classroom of first graders without reloading?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I suggested stricter background checks and they were roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the gun show loophole and it was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the straw man purchasers and that was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the sale, manufacture, distribution and importation of high capacity magazines and guess what? That was roundly rejected.

No gun enthusiast has put forth ANY solutions. That leads me to this unfortunate conclusion: gun enthusiasts do not see any problem with gun violence, perhaps even they welcome it. What else is anyone to think?

The fact of the matter is... guns do not kill people... people kill people.

No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

Tell me, of the recent mass killings how many of those were members of the NRA? How many had CHL's?

I concede the obvious: No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

But that does little to stem the tide of gun violence. Cain killed Abel but he did not use a gun. Adam lanza killed 26. If Cain had a gun, it's possible he could have turned that gun on all of Gods created humans and we would have no history of that because no one would survive to write it. People are going to kill one another.

But should we have available tools that make it possible to mow down a classroom of first graders without reloading?

The worst mass killing at a school happened in the 1920's, 37 children were killed along with about four adults. No gun was used.

If one teacher at that school had been armed, then I doubt 26 lives would have ended that day.

Gun violence is not the fault of the gun. Why do liberals insist on blaimng an inanimate object?

Adam Lanza did not use a rifle, he used two pistols. The rifle (Bushmaster .223 not an AR-15 as some idiots have suggested) was found in the trunk of his car.

 

[Pogo]

The fact of the matter is... guns do not kill people... people kill people.

No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

Tell me, of the recent mass killings how many of those were members of the NRA? How many had CHL's?

I concede the obvious: No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

But that does little to stem the tide of gun violence. Cain killed Abel but he did not use a gun. Adam lanza killed 26. If Cain had a gun, it's possible he could have turned that gun on all of Gods created humans and we would have no history of that because no one would survive to write it. People are going to kill one another.

But should we have available tools that make it possible to mow down a classroom of first graders without reloading?

The worst mass killing at a school happened in the 1920's, 37 children were killed along with about four adults. No gun was used.

If one teacher at that school had been armed, then I doubt 26 lives would have ended that day.

Gun violence is not the fault of the gun. Why do liberals insist on blaimng an inanimate object?

Adam Lanza did not use a rifle, he used two pistols. The rifle (Bushmaster .223 not an AR-15 as some idiots have suggested) was found in the trunk of his car.

I don't know if there was a point coming here but back up to that school killing with 37 children and "about four" adults. How do you count "about four" adults? And no link? That's damn sloppy. So I had to look it up myself.

Turns out this incident in Bath Township Michigan (1927) was executed by dynamite planted in the school's basement, so no, having teachers armed would not have saved the "26" (read: 44) lives at the school. The perpetrator wasn't even in the school. If anything having teachers armed may have caused more deaths in the explosion.

There's a detailed account of that incident in a recent article, and it just aligns with what I've posted in 179 about personal power.

Lessons from America's First School Massacre
It was looking like May 19th would be a beautiful spring day.

By about 8:00 am children began arriving at the new school. Mr. Kehoe sat on his porch in the morning sun, enjoying the sounds of children playing and of cars on the way to the schoolyard.

At about 8:45 is where the story gets tricky. Some witnesses reported that Mr. Kehoe detonated his own farm before the 1,000 pounds of dynamite he'd squirreled in the school’s basement and under its floorboards were triggered by a timer. Some said the school exploded first, and then the Kehoe farm went up in flames. Everyone agrees that townsfolk raced to the school. Nearly every family in town had a child enrolled. As mothers and fathers tore frantically at the rubble in search of their children, Mr. Kehoe drove into town, up to the mayhem, and blew up his car, killing himself, the school superintendent, and a few rescuers.

The death toll by the end of the week had climbed to 37 children and 7 adults. The numbers would have been about six times as high, but Mr. Kehoe wasn't as good an electrician as he'd thought. A main switch had a gap, and as a result only one of the wings of the school exploded.

After the wounded and dead were pulled from the scene, some townsfolk made it over to the Kehoe farm to try to puzzle out what had happened. At the perimeter fence they found the sign that Mr. Kehoe had so carefully kept out of harm's way. "Criminals," it said, "are made, not born."

After the slaughter in Bath Township, Michigan, there was a 39-year pause in mass killings on a campus. Then, on a hot August day in Austin in 1966, former Eagle Scout Charles J. Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin, where he used his Marine sniper training to kill 14 people. Between that day and December 14’s deaths in Connecticut, over 150 more children and adults died in massacres on America’s school and university campuses. (more here)

1927 was, of course, way before AR-15s, video games, mass media or a legacy of shooting rampages from which to copycat.

(Note that this article is limited to school killings, not movie theaters, malls and other public places)

 

[Ernie S.]

But you just did, and it's sitting right here ^. What the hell do you call "you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids"?? You do read English, do you not?

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

Funny! I don't see him running away as much as throwing up his hands in disgust. It's rather difficult to have a discussion with an arrogant bastard that refuses to discuss the issue. Your posts are full of insults, strawmen and diversions, but very short on substance.
It's hardly worth the time to respond to you. The bully bullshit might work on some people but it's failing miserably here.

 

[PredFan]

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

Funny! I don't see him running away as much as throwing up his hands in disgust. It's rather difficult to have a discussion with an arrogant bastard that refuses to discuss the issue. Your posts are full of insults, strawmen and diversions, but very short on substance.
It's hardly worth the time to respond to you. The bully bullshit might work on some people but it's failing miserably here.

Yup, he's dismissed.

 

[Spoonman]

i see a lot of arguments here and all around saying that if large capacity magazines were banned lanza couldn't have killed all these people without reloading. well lets see. he shot 26 people and the report said all were shot multiple times. so he had to reload right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I concede the obvious: No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

But that does little to stem the tide of gun violence. Cain killed Abel but he did not use a gun. Adam lanza killed 26. If Cain had a gun, it's possible he could have turned that gun on all of Gods created humans and we would have no history of that because no one would survive to write it. People are going to kill one another.

But should we have available tools that make it possible to mow down a classroom of first graders without reloading?

The worst mass killing at a school happened in the 1920's, 37 children were killed along with about four adults. No gun was used.

If one teacher at that school had been armed, then I doubt 26 lives would have ended that day.

Gun violence is not the fault of the gun. Why do liberals insist on blaimng an inanimate object?

Adam Lanza did not use a rifle, he used two pistols. The rifle (Bushmaster .223 not an AR-15 as some idiots have suggested) was found in the trunk of his car.

I don't know if there was a point coming here but back up to that school killing with 37 children and "about four" adults. How do you count "about four" adults? And no link? That's damn sloppy. So I had to look it up myself.

Turns out this incident in Bath Township Michigan (1927) was executed by dynamite planted in the school's basement, so no, having teachers armed would not have saved the "26" (read: 44) lives at the school. The perpetrator wasn't even in the school. If anything having teachers armed may have caused more deaths in the explosion.

There's a detailed account of that incident in a recent article, and it just aligns with what I've posted in 179 about personal power.

Lessons from America's First School Massacre
It was looking like May 19th would be a beautiful spring day.

By about 8:00 am children began arriving at the new school. Mr. Kehoe sat on his porch in the morning sun, enjoying the sounds of children playing and of cars on the way to the schoolyard.

At about 8:45 is where the story gets tricky. Some witnesses reported that Mr. Kehoe detonated his own farm before the 1,000 pounds of dynamite he'd squirreled in the school’s basement and under its floorboards were triggered by a timer. Some said the school exploded first, and then the Kehoe farm went up in flames. Everyone agrees that townsfolk raced to the school. Nearly every family in town had a child enrolled. As mothers and fathers tore frantically at the rubble in search of their children, Mr. Kehoe drove into town, up to the mayhem, and blew up his car, killing himself, the school superintendent, and a few rescuers.

The death toll by the end of the week had climbed to 37 children and 7 adults. The numbers would have been about six times as high, but Mr. Kehoe wasn't as good an electrician as he'd thought. A main switch had a gap, and as a result only one of the wings of the school exploded.

After the wounded and dead were pulled from the scene, some townsfolk made it over to the Kehoe farm to try to puzzle out what had happened. At the perimeter fence they found the sign that Mr. Kehoe had so carefully kept out of harm's way. "Criminals," it said, "are made, not born."

After the slaughter in Bath Township, Michigan, there was a 39-year pause in mass killings on a campus. Then, on a hot August day in Austin in 1966, former Eagle Scout Charles J. Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin, where he used his Marine sniper training to kill 14 people. Between that day and December 14’s deaths in Connecticut, over 150 more children and adults died in massacres on America’s school and university campuses. (more here)

1927 was, of course, way before AR-15s, video games, mass media or a legacy of shooting rampages from which to copycat.

(Note that this article is limited to school killings, not movie theaters, malls and other public places)

The point was (figures I have to spell it out for you) that a person does not need a firearm to kill a lot of children.

 

[PredFan]

The thing that the left wing loons never can rationally answer is the fact that gun laws have never ever worked. They convenietly ignore that Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

But of course, in order to be a liberal, one must ignore facts, be able to dodge the truth, and be clever enough to derail any argument.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

Funny! I don't see him running away as much as throwing up his hands in disgust. It's rather difficult to have a discussion with an arrogant bastard that refuses to discuss the issue. Your posts are full of insults, strawmen and diversions, but very short on substance.
It's hardly worth the time to respond to you. The bully bullshit might work on some people but it's failing miserably here.

Ironic post from a guy who walks around stalking me in the forums to toss negs about posts he wasn't even involved in, don't you think? Again, as before-- what the fuck business is it of yours?

The fact is this coward claimed " you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda" and that that "agenda" was "Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution" --- and when I challenged him to back any of that up, he ran away.

That's what I call a coward. And even though it's got zero to do with you, you can like it or lump it. You make an assertion on me, you back it up or you walk. He walked. You might follow his example.

 

[Ernie S.]

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

Funny! I don't see him running away as much as throwing up his hands in disgust. It's rather difficult to have a discussion with an arrogant bastard that refuses to discuss the issue. Your posts are full of insults, strawmen and diversions, but very short on substance.
It's hardly worth the time to respond to you. The bully bullshit might work on some people but it's failing miserably here.

Ironic post from a guy who walks around stalking me in the forums to toss negs about posts he wasn't even involved in, don't you think? Again, as before-- what the fuck business is it of yours?

The fact is this coward claimed " you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda" and that that "agenda" was "Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution" --- and when I challenged him to back any of that up, he ran away.

That's what I call a coward. And even though it's got zero to do with you, you can like it or lump it. You make an assertion on me, you back it up or you walk. He walked. You might follow his example.

I don't stalk you. I find it impossible to avoid you and I'm generally offended by what you post, and I frequently use the rep system to point that out.
You are a reasonably intelligent young lady and use your intelligence as a substitute for substance. You rarely add anything to a discussion other than ridicule and insult. I don't know where you've posted before. Maybe your style gained you some notoriety or power there, but here, you need substance. If you learn to discuss issues instead of personalities, you might just be a quality poster here. If not, I suspect you will leave here the same way you left your last board.

 

[Pogo]

The worst mass killing at a school happened in the 1920's, 37 children were killed along with about four adults. No gun was used.

If one teacher at that school had been armed, then I doubt 26 lives would have ended that day.

Gun violence is not the fault of the gun. Why do liberals insist on blaimng an inanimate object?

Adam Lanza did not use a rifle, he used two pistols. The rifle (Bushmaster .223 not an AR-15 as some idiots have suggested) was found in the trunk of his car.

I don't know if there was a point coming here but back up to that school killing with 37 children and "about four" adults. How do you count "about four" adults? And no link? That's damn sloppy. So I had to look it up myself.

Turns out this incident in Bath Township Michigan (1927) was executed by dynamite planted in the school's basement, so no, having teachers armed would not have saved the "26" (read: 44) lives at the school. The perpetrator wasn't even in the school. If anything having teachers armed may have caused more deaths in the explosion.

There's a detailed account of that incident in a recent article, and it just aligns with what I've posted in 179 about personal power.

Lessons from America's First School Massacre
It was looking like May 19th would be a beautiful spring day.

By about 8:00 am children began arriving at the new school. Mr. Kehoe sat on his porch in the morning sun, enjoying the sounds of children playing and of cars on the way to the schoolyard.

At about 8:45 is where the story gets tricky. Some witnesses reported that Mr. Kehoe detonated his own farm before the 1,000 pounds of dynamite he'd squirreled in the school’s basement and under its floorboards were triggered by a timer. Some said the school exploded first, and then the Kehoe farm went up in flames. Everyone agrees that townsfolk raced to the school. Nearly every family in town had a child enrolled. As mothers and fathers tore frantically at the rubble in search of their children, Mr. Kehoe drove into town, up to the mayhem, and blew up his car, killing himself, the school superintendent, and a few rescuers.

The death toll by the end of the week had climbed to 37 children and 7 adults. The numbers would have been about six times as high, but Mr. Kehoe wasn't as good an electrician as he'd thought. A main switch had a gap, and as a result only one of the wings of the school exploded.

After the wounded and dead were pulled from the scene, some townsfolk made it over to the Kehoe farm to try to puzzle out what had happened. At the perimeter fence they found the sign that Mr. Kehoe had so carefully kept out of harm's way. "Criminals," it said, "are made, not born."

After the slaughter in Bath Township, Michigan, there was a 39-year pause in mass killings on a campus. Then, on a hot August day in Austin in 1966, former Eagle Scout Charles J. Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin, where he used his Marine sniper training to kill 14 people. Between that day and December 14’s deaths in Connecticut, over 150 more children and adults died in massacres on America’s school and university campuses. (more here)

1927 was, of course, way before AR-15s, video games, mass media or a legacy of shooting rampages from which to copycat.

(Note that this article is limited to school killings, not movie theaters, malls and other public places)

The point was (figures I have to spell it out for you) that a person does not need a firearm to kill a lot of children.

I agree. And that's why I spelled out details on that incident. What I challenge is the premise -- the premise that the objective is killing. It isn't. That's a byproduct. The objective is carnage. And the distinction is crucial to understanding how these things happen.

"Killing" can be accomplished any number of ways, and has been with us since the beginning, way before guns. It's objective is to end the life of some person, for whatever reason -- jilted lover, business cheat, witness to a crime, etc.

Kehoe and Lanza and Holmes and Klebold and Harris didn't have that motivation; theirs was massacre, which means there's no particular care whether person A or B or C is the next vicitm; it's random. Any warm body will do.

"A massacre is an incident where some group is killed by another, and the perpetrating party are perceived to be in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived to be helpless and/or innocent with regard to any legitimate offense." (Wiki-- crucial part in bold)

Once again, and I guess I'll say it until it sinks in, massacre is to murder as rape is to sex. It's about power. It's not about killing, where the objective is to end a life; it's about carnage, where the objective is to wield power. It doesn't matter to a massacreist whether the vicitm's life ended; what matters is that he is the one who wielded the power to end it.

Massacres, in our time, are committed with the technology we have. As noted above, AR-15s and their ilk were neither extant nor glorified in 1927. So Kehoe used dynamite. Today, nothing says carnage like an AR-15 (meant generically). That's just the time we live in.

I get the idea this conflation of massacre with murder is just a rhetorical tool to avoid dealing with the issue. And the issue is not that guns exist, or that they have this or that restriction. The issue is why we want them. And again, it comes back to the same word:
Power.

And that is the equivalence we have to fix. It's not a constitutional issue; it's a psychological one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are a reasonably intelligent young lady and use your intelligence as a substitute for substance.

Reasonably intelligent adults do not act like children.

 

[Pogo]

Funny! I don't see him running away as much as throwing up his hands in disgust. It's rather difficult to have a discussion with an arrogant bastard that refuses to discuss the issue. Your posts are full of insults, strawmen and diversions, but very short on substance.
It's hardly worth the time to respond to you. The bully bullshit might work on some people but it's failing miserably here.

Ironic post from a guy who walks around stalking me in the forums to toss negs about posts he wasn't even involved in, don't you think? Again, as before-- what the fuck business is it of yours?

The fact is this coward claimed " you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda" and that that "agenda" was "Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution" --- and when I challenged him to back any of that up, he ran away.

That's what I call a coward. And even though it's got zero to do with you, you can like it or lump it. You make an assertion on me, you back it up or you walk. He walked. You might follow his example.

I don't stalk you. I find it impossible to avoid you and I'm generally offended by what you post, and I frequently use the rep system to point that out.
You are a reasonably intelligent young lady and use your intelligence as a substitute for substance. You rarely add anything to a discussion other than ridicule and insult. I don't know where you've posted before. Maybe your style gained you some notoriety or power there, but here, you need substance. If you learn to discuss issues instead of personalities, you might just be a quality poster here. If not, I suspect you will leave here the same way you left your last board.

Oh poster please. Every single time you've come around to neg me, without exception, it's been because you disagreed with my opinions. This last time you jumped in on an exchange that didn't even involve you, about a simple pun that somebody else didn't get. So don't give me your sanctimonious crapola about "can't avoid you" when you're following me around, and spare me the "ridicule and insult" song and dance while you deliberately sitting there misrepresenting my gender, speaking of childish. You don't have a kickstand to stand on.

Sure, you'd like to play the part of rhetorical sniper. Problem is, I return fire. If you can't handle that then shoot somewhere else. I don't put up with it. Period.

 

[Dubya]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Hopefully, but they tend to be a brainwashed bunch.

I use to have dinner at a bar after work and quite often one of the higher ups in the NRA would have dinner there too. He was a nice enough guy and he would mention to the bartender that he had to attend a meeting somewhere shortly in the future. Occasionally, he would talk about the NRA, so I asked him if he knew of court decisions that caused things to change. I never studied the case law and was just curious. I couldn't get an answer out of him. On another occasion when he was talking about the NRA, I asked since the Constitution says arms and not guns, where do you draw the line? I had to futher explain between a knife and a hydrogen bomb, what weapons should people be allowed to have and not have? The only thing I remember getting out of him was people shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

These people are taught to believe in something and not really think it through. They believe the government is screwing them of their liberties and if everybody had a gun, crime would disappear. That's possible after everybody kills each other off.

I don't know about the whole membership of the NRA, but the ones that really believe in it aren't the types to easily change or leave the organization. They view any restriction on guns is an infringement of their sacred rights and liberties.