The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

Oh, well, since you said it AGAIN, that must make it true. I thought you were full of shit until you repeated yourself.

Facts, tweeko. Tell me facts. Your opinions and assertions mean nothing to me, because if you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

Save the name calling if you want to sound like anything approaching a reasonable person

From Open Secrets

The National Rifle Association’s overall spending surged by more than $100 million in 2016, surpassing any previous annual NRA spending totals on record, according to an audit obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The explosion in spending came as the NRA poured unprecedented amounts of money into efforts to deliver Donald Trump the White House and help Republicans hold both houses of Congress.

The audit filed with the state of North Carolina shows that the NRA’s total expenditures exploded to more than $419 million, up from $312 million the prior year.

The jump is even more stark when compared to its spending during the previous two presidential elections in 2012 and 2008, when their outlays topped out at $261 million and $204 million, respectively, according to similar audits.These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training.

Save the instructions on how to please you. I wouldn't take the approval of the likes of you if you offered it on a silver platter with an apple in its mouth.

Also, learn to read for comprehension, Brain Trust. See the phrase "overall expenditures"? Had you not been so eager to indict the NRA for the "heinous crime" of - GASP! - spending their legally-obtained donations on the completely legal execution of their completely legal purpose, it MIGHT have permeated that vacuum between your ears that "overall expenditures" means THEIR ENTIRE BUDGET, not just political donations. This is further borne out, in your own quote, by the sentence "These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training."

So now I'm left wondering if you're just an ignorant cow, or if you're a dishonest cow. Either way, moo!

 

[hadit]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

That's not what it says.

 

[hadit]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

No, it does not say that. It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about "for your State or the Union". You added that in there yourself, and desperately hope that it will somehow magically appear if you say it often enough, but IT'S NOT IN THERE.

The security of a free State of our Union is expressly declared as the reason for a well regulated militia. We should have no security problems in our free States.

It's still not in there.

 

[Lesh]

Save the instructions on how to please you. I wouldn't take the approval of the likes of you if you offered it on a silver platter with an apple in its mouth.

Also, learn to read for comprehension, Brain Trust. See the phrase "overall expenditures"? Had you not been so eager to indict the NRA for the "heinous crime" of - GASP! - spending their legally-obtained donations on the completely legal execution of their completely legal purpose, it MIGHT have permeated that vacuum between your ears that "overall expenditures" means THEIR ENTIRE BUDGET, not just political donations. This is further borne out, in your own quote, by the sentence "These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training."

So now I'm left wondering if you're just an ignorant cow, or if you're a dishonest cow. Either way, moo!

You'll never get my approval and I wasn't suggesting you had that opportunity. I assumed you want to be thought of by others as reasonable.

Obviously you don't...probably because you know you are anything but.

And there;'s no doubt that the NRA is INCREDIBLY powerful considering the hundreds of millions they have spent...your parsing notwithstanding

 

[hadit]

Save the instructions on how to please you. I wouldn't take the approval of the likes of you if you offered it on a silver platter with an apple in its mouth.

Also, learn to read for comprehension, Brain Trust. See the phrase "overall expenditures"? Had you not been so eager to indict the NRA for the "heinous crime" of - GASP! - spending their legally-obtained donations on the completely legal execution of their completely legal purpose, it MIGHT have permeated that vacuum between your ears that "overall expenditures" means THEIR ENTIRE BUDGET, not just political donations. This is further borne out, in your own quote, by the sentence "These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training."

So now I'm left wondering if you're just an ignorant cow, or if you're a dishonest cow. Either way, moo!

You'll never get my approval and I wasn't suggesting you had that opportunity. I assumed you want to be thought of by others as reasonable.

Obviously you don't...probably because you know you are anything but.

And there;'s no doubt that the NRA is INCREDIBLY powerful considering the hundreds of millions they have spent...your parsing notwithstanding

So is Planned Parenthood, which spends more and has a tighter lock on the democrats. Wachawannado, outlaw lobbying?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Save the instructions on how to please you. I wouldn't take the approval of the likes of you if you offered it on a silver platter with an apple in its mouth.

Also, learn to read for comprehension, Brain Trust. See the phrase "overall expenditures"? Had you not been so eager to indict the NRA for the "heinous crime" of - GASP! - spending their legally-obtained donations on the completely legal execution of their completely legal purpose, it MIGHT have permeated that vacuum between your ears that "overall expenditures" means THEIR ENTIRE BUDGET, not just political donations. This is further borne out, in your own quote, by the sentence "These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training."

So now I'm left wondering if you're just an ignorant cow, or if you're a dishonest cow. Either way, moo!

You'll never get my approval and I wasn't suggesting you had that opportunity. I assumed you want to be thought of by others as reasonable.

Obviously you don't...probably because you know you are anything but.

And there;'s no doubt that the NRA is INCREDIBLY powerful considering the hundreds of millions they have spent...your parsing notwithstanding

I swear, there has to be a page in the Leftist Handbook that says, "You are VERY VERY important to everyone! If you tell people that they are not good enough for you, they will crumple into helpless despair!" It's the only explanation for having to tell every leftist on Earth three times that they aren't worth a bucket of lukewarm piss to you before they stop feeling the need to withhold approval you never asked for and wouldn't use to wipe your ass.

By those I respect (read: not you) I'm thought of as quite reasonable. I'd rather be boiled in oil than ever be anything a third-rate excuse for a primate like you would consider reasonable.

Now, if we're QUITE done with your lame attempt to pretend respectability, perhaps we could move on to the ACTUAL topic.

Which is that there's no doubt the NRA is a drop in the bucket in terms of political donations . . . your lies notwithstanding.

 

[Freiheit]

The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.

The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.

That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.

Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals

Did you read the actual report or just the partisan Blaze article?

The truth is not partisan, chief. I did read the actual report. It said exactly what The Blaze reported.

I just posted findings from the actual report that contradicts what you said in your OP.

Go to the criminal element buy anything you have money to pay for the dark web is infamous for criminal activity. In a large city you
can purchase firearms of every stripe and you don't need anything but money. I was suprised the GAO agents were only able to buy
two weapons on the dark web. They must have looked like feds online. I am amazed at the stupidity shown by gun abolitionists did
you learn nothing from prohibition or the war on drugs? If there is demand it will be supplied.

 

[Lesh]

So is Planned Parenthood, which spends more and has a tighter lock on the democrats. Wachawannado, outlaw lobbying?

Really! I'd like to see a credible report of them spending hundreds of millions.

I won't hold my breath

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

That's not what it says.

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

 

[Lesh]

By those I respect (read: not you) I'm thought of as quite reasonable. I'd rather be boiled in oil than ever be anything a third-rate excuse for a primate like you would consider reasonable.

That only speaks poorly of those you respect. Maria Butina maybe?

I doubt that many reasonable people consider constant name calling "reasonable" but maybe in the gun nut culture...

 

[Cecilie1200]

By those I respect (read: not you) I'm thought of as quite reasonable. I'd rather be boiled in oil than ever be anything a third-rate excuse for a primate like you would consider reasonable.

That only speaks poorly of those you respect. Maria Butina maybe?

I doubt that many reasonable people consider constant name calling "reasonable" but maybe in the gun nut culture...

No, that only speaks poorly of those I respect in the eyes of people beneath contempt.

You simply cannot get it through your egotistical little peabrain that the only person who thinks you have any stature around here is you. When you prance around, declaring that people can't have your approval, you're basically hoarding Monopoly money: it has no value, and your behavior just makes everyone laugh at you.

Learn the difference between "reasonable" and "nice", Chuckles. You don't deserve to be treated nicely, and it would be unreasonable of me to treat you better than you have earned.

 

[hadit]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

That's not what it says.

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

 

[Lesh]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

 

[hadit]

So is Planned Parenthood, which spends more and has a tighter lock on the democrats. Wachawannado, outlaw lobbying?

Really! I'd like to see a credible report of them spending hundreds of millions.

I won't hold my breath

I'll even give you a little and say that they spent the same amount as the NRA. How about that?

 

[hadit]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

I'm not ignoring them. I'm also keeping them in the appropriate context, which is not restrictive on the second clause.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So is Planned Parenthood, which spends more and has a tighter lock on the democrats. Wachawannado, outlaw lobbying?

Really! I'd like to see a credible report of them spending hundreds of millions.

I won't hold my breath

I'll even give you a little and say that they spent the same amount as the NRA. How about that?

You're actually correct. The NRA and Planned Parenthood have donated almost exactly the same amount to individual candidates since 2012 ($2.7 million versus $2.6 respectively), according to USA Today.

 

[P@triot]

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

That’s not how the law works, chief. If it doesn’t say it explicitly in black and white, then it doesn’t exist. You don’t get to declare you believe something to be “implied”.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

It’s a right. It belongs to the people. It cannot be disputed. Time to move on, sparky.

 

[P@triot]

Reason #4,021 why the right to keep and bear arms is so critical. She would be alive and well today had she exercised her 2nd Amendment rights.

Cougar apparently killed Oregon woman missing for nearly 2 weeks, investigators say

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.

That's not what it says.

yes, that is clearly implied, in what is expressed.

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

Yes, they clearly do; the first clause is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Words mean things, and what you say it means is not in there.

They do. And you keep trying t ignore these words

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

I'm not ignoring them. I'm also keeping them in the appropriate context, which is not restrictive on the second clause.

The first clause is the Context.