What are your thoughts on the NRA?

[rightwinger]

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

You can drive your car all you want without obeying any traffic laws or getting a license, providing you are not on public streets.

Public streets are paid for by pubic funds and therefore subject to public traffic laws and a license requirement. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms. Apples and oranges.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right that has no qualifications or licensing requirements to it. In fact it was created because it is "necessary to the security of a free state". It says so right there in the Bill of Rights.

The Secondment Amendment is the only license I need to keep and bear arms and it doesn't say a damn thing about registration, background checks, assault weapon bans or restrictions on the size of magazines. Nothing about restricting handguns or having to get a concealed weapons permit. In fact the only thing it really says is that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty straightforward, isn't it? However, I am always amazed at how such a simple statement is always beyond the ability of a Moon Bat to understand.

Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

Oh you're the master of the selective quote there lefty!

link

 

[BULLDOG]

[
Cut through the crap. Nobody is trying to stop reasonable gun use. You want military style weapons for the war you want to have with the government. Bunch of crazies led by traitors.

Do you like like this to your kids?

Very rarely. Only when they did really stupid stuff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

Just because it's more complex than you are comfortable with doesn't mean it is inane.
1. Gun nuts see background checks as evidence of "THEY'RE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
2. Gun nuts frantically say "I HAVE TO BUY MORE GUNS NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
3. Gun manufacturers make a fortune.
4. Gun manufacturers give the NRA lots of money to keep telling the GUN NUTS that "THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
For the NRA and gun manufacturers, they see it as "THE CIRCLE OF LIFE?

You just described how UBC would INCREASE profits for gun manufacturers.
.
Can't keep your lies straight, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Cut through the crap. Nobody is trying to stop reasonable gun use. You want military style weapons for the war you want to have with the government. Bunch of crazies led by traitors.

Do you like like this to your kids?

Very rarely. Only when they did really stupid stuff.

So... why do you like like this to us?

 

[Vandalshandle]

[
Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.

There no logic involved at all here as traffic laws are not intended to prevent deaths.
Laws cannot prevent people form breaking the law; any such law is passed to no good purpose.
laws that restrict the exercise of a right to no good purpose violate the constitution.

I am officially nominating this post as the winner of today's SPIN POST OF THE YEAR award. In fact, this post spins so much that I think that it is biting it's on tail!

 

[Flash]

[


What legal right is infringed if you are able to use a bolt action rifle for your legal activities?

You or the government have no right to telling me what guns I cannot have. I get to make that decision myself because of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, where I am a citizen. "Shall not be infringed" is not qualified by a list of what is acceptable and not acceptable.

I prefer to have AR-15s. M1As, FAls, AKs etc over a one shot bolt rifle. If you don't want them that is fine but you have no right telling me what I can and cannot have.

I know you Libtards are always trying to tell people how to live their lives but thank goodness for the Bill of Rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.

There no logic involved at all here as traffic laws are not intended to prevent deaths.
Laws cannot prevent people form breaking the law; any such law is passed to no good purpose.
laws that restrict the exercise of a right to no good purpose violate the constitution.

I am officially nominating this post as the winner of today's SPIN POST OF THE YEAR award. In fact, this post spins so much that I think that it is biting it's on tail!

Can't handle the truth, eh?
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law; laws exist not to prevent an action but to allow the state to punish people for taking that action.
Think I'm wrong? Show how.

 

[BULLDOG]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Because they are pointless and stupid.....current background checks have not stopped the 8-9,000 gun murders each year, nor any of the mass shootings that have happened...the criminals get their guns by stealing them or having family or friends, who can pass background checks by the guns......and mass shooters in the past.....have passed multiple background checks before they went on their shooting sprees.....

Universal background checks will require registering firearms in order to track where they are going....and that is simply the first step that the anti gunners need when they get the power to ban or confiscate guns.....

Universal background checks are just another anti gun nut lie.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

Nice try. Traffic laws only apply when you do something WRONG with your car on a public street. The gun laws your ilk proposes punishes people BEFORE they do something wrong. That is prior restraint, and that is what makes a lot of these gun laws unconstitutional.

Traffic laws apply to everyone. It's not ok to ignore the laws just because you haven't run over anyone yet.

Traffic laws don't prevent you from getting a car in the first place, and don't discriminate between people due to various reasons, such as job, government status etc. And the DMV cannot deny you a license "just because"

Traffic laws and gun laws are not exactly the same thing, but traffic laws do discriminate between people for exactly the reasons you list. A cop or ambulance can, after following proper procedures, run a red light, speed, go the wrong way on a one way road, and a host of other things that you or I can't. Trucks with a proper escort can ignore almost any traffic law, within reason. No reasonable law can deny anything "JUST BECAUSE", and only an idiot would think any reasonable law could.

 

[Flash]

[


Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

Go read Justice Scalia's explanation of what "a well regulated militia" means in the Heller case. I will give you a hint; it means well provisioned as in having good working firearms and ammo.

That is not open for debate any more. That is settled law. The Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right to keep and bear arms or the right of religion. That issue was put to bed. Membership to a formal militia is not a qualification for the individual right to keep and bear arms according to the Supreme Court. Didn't you get the memo? I know that pissed you Libtards off to no end but sorry about that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Traffic laws and gun laws are not exactly the same thing....

And so any comparison is invalid. Thank you.

but traffic laws do discriminate between people for exactly the reasons you list. A cop or ambulance can, after following proper procedures, run a red light....

Invalid comparison
A cop in this context is not a person, but an actor of the state.

 

[westwall]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

Just because it's more complex than you are comfortable with doesn't mean it is inane.

1. Gun nuts see background checks as evidence of "THEY'RE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
2. Gun nuts frantically say "I HAVE TO BUY MORE GUNS NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
3. Gun manufacturers make a fortune.
4. Gun manufacturers give the NRA lots of money to keep telling the GUN NUTS that "THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"

For the NRA and gun manufacturers, they see it as "THE CIRCLE OF LIFE?

1. Gun enthusiasts look at prior history and understand that gun registration is the first step. The
MAJORITY of background check schemes contain a gun registration clause. Not all. But most.

2. Gun enthusiasts already have guns so the people buying them now are those who didn't have them
before. Overwhelmingly when I go to a gunshop for something it is newbys buying the guns.

3. Gun manufacturers have never made a "fortune". They do contribute around 31 billion to the
economy and amazingly enough they employ more people than GM.

4. Gun manufacturers certainly advertise with the NRA but the politicians do more for gun sales than
any manufacturer ever does.

 

[Flash]

[

Traffic laws and gun laws are not exactly the same thing, but traffic laws do discriminate between people for exactly the reasons you list. A cop or ambulance can, after following proper procedures, run a red light, speed, go the wrong way on a one way road, and a host of other things that you or I can't. Trucks with a proper escort can ignore almost any traffic law, within reason. No reasonable law can deny anything "JUST BECAUSE", and only an idiot would think any reasonable law could.

You have no Constitutional right to drive on public roads. The state can deny you that privilege any time it wants for any one of many reasons.

The courts may determine that since you pay your taxes you must be allowed to drive on the roads as long as you obey the rules as part of a due process determination but that is as far as it goes.

However, you do have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Life's a bitch, huh?

 

[Flash]

4. Gun manufacturers certainly advertise with the NRA but the politicians do more for gun sales than any manufacturer ever does.

Obama is the best firearm and ammo salesman this country ever had. He at least doubled the number of AR 15s sold in this country.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you are willing to let obviously dangerous people have guns until all the things you see as a problem are worked out? That's pretty stupid.

Progressives let obviously dangerous people out of prison all the time. Here you have people who have been CONVICTED of violent crimes, and you all fight to let them out. Why is that?

Because we are not China or Russia or a dozen other countries who have kangaroo courts and whose citizens suffer under regimes of cruel and callous conservatives.

No, we're not. However in OUR courts, and with our system of justice we have CONVICTED tens of thousands of violent criminals and you progressives fight tooth and nail to get them released. Why? You are more worried about honest citizens owning guns for defense than you are for ALREADY PROVEN VIOLENT OPERATORS! Your arguments are moronic given that history.

Tens of thousands have been convicted, and thousands have been executed. Evidently you are OK with letting the guilty people go free as long as somebody's ass is blamed. I don't like the idea of killing or locking up innocent people while the real bad guys go free. Either way, that is not the subject here, and I'm not sure why you are trying to hijack the thread.

I'm not talking about wrongfully convicted people silly person. I'm talking about legitimate, violent people, who should be locked up forever, yet progressive lawyers and their ilk fight like devils to get these people released. I ask you again...why? Below are a very, very few of the types I'm talking about. Why are scumbags like this EVER allowed out of prison? Why do you fight for their release?



‘I know he’s going to hurt someone else’: Victim's families dismayed as Washington frees repeat child rapist
Cory Roberts was 13 years old when he was jailed for beating and raping a 3-year-old girl. He was released in 2001 but sent back to jail weeks later for assaulting another toddler. Now, psychologists say he's no longer violent or sexually attracted to children. He was sent to a halfway house on Monday.
Wash. releases violent child rapist - NY Daily News



"SEATTLE — It is a crime as cold and calculated as they come and one that stunned the communities of West Seattle and Kitsap County, and has haunted the victim for more than 30 years."

Violent rapist sentenced to life is released living in Seattle Q13 FOX News



LOS ANGELES —District Attorney Jackie Lacey said Tuesday her office will challenge a Northern California judge's decision to release a sexually violent predator in Los Angeles County.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown granted convicted serial rapist Christopher Evans Hubbart, 62, a conditional release from custody in May.


Violent serial NorCal rapist to be released Local News - KSBW Home

Are you expecting me to say I'm happy about those outcomes? I'm not sure why you would think I would condone such things. However, since you or I don't have any of the facts of the cases, other than your links, I have no choice but to trust our legal system and hope for the best. It's no where near perfect, but it's what our country is based on. The judges should be held accountable for their judgments. They are responsible for the outcome.

 

[rightwinger]

[


Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

Go read Justice Scalia's explanation of what "a well regulated militia" means in the Heller case. I will give you a hint; it means well provisioned as in having good working firearms and ammo.

That is not open for debate any more. That is settled law. The Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right to keep and bear arms or the right of religion. That issue was put to bed. Membership to a formal militia is not a qualification for the individual right to keep and bear arms according to the Supreme Court. Didn't you get the memo? I know that pissed you Libtards off to no end but sorry about that.

OK ...well regulated means well provisioned with good working firearms and ammo (training too)

How do we know how well provisioned our well regulated militia is without registering them and verifying that they are adequately provisioned and trained

The security of a free state depends on it

The second amendment REQUIRES registration

 

[westwall]

Progressives let obviously dangerous people out of prison all the time. Here you have people who have been CONVICTED of violent crimes, and you all fight to let them out. Why is that?

Because we are not China or Russia or a dozen other countries who have kangaroo courts and whose citizens suffer under regimes of cruel and callous conservatives.

No, we're not. However in OUR courts, and with our system of justice we have CONVICTED tens of thousands of violent criminals and you progressives fight tooth and nail to get them released. Why? You are more worried about honest citizens owning guns for defense than you are for ALREADY PROVEN VIOLENT OPERATORS! Your arguments are moronic given that history.

Tens of thousands have been convicted, and thousands have been executed. Evidently you are OK with letting the guilty people go free as long as somebody's ass is blamed. I don't like the idea of killing or locking up innocent people while the real bad guys go free. Either way, that is not the subject here, and I'm not sure why you are trying to hijack the thread.

I'm not talking about wrongfully convicted people silly person. I'm talking about legitimate, violent people, who should be locked up forever, yet progressive lawyers and their ilk fight like devils to get these people released. I ask you again...why? Below are a very, very few of the types I'm talking about. Why are scumbags like this EVER allowed out of prison? Why do you fight for their release?



‘I know he’s going to hurt someone else’: Victim's families dismayed as Washington frees repeat child rapist
Cory Roberts was 13 years old when he was jailed for beating and raping a 3-year-old girl. He was released in 2001 but sent back to jail weeks later for assaulting another toddler. Now, psychologists say he's no longer violent or sexually attracted to children. He was sent to a halfway house on Monday.
Wash. releases violent child rapist - NY Daily News



"SEATTLE — It is a crime as cold and calculated as they come and one that stunned the communities of West Seattle and Kitsap County, and has haunted the victim for more than 30 years."

Violent rapist sentenced to life is released living in Seattle Q13 FOX News



LOS ANGELES —District Attorney Jackie Lacey said Tuesday her office will challenge a Northern California judge's decision to release a sexually violent predator in Los Angeles County.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown granted convicted serial rapist Christopher Evans Hubbart, 62, a conditional release from custody in May.


Violent serial NorCal rapist to be released Local News - KSBW Home

Are you expecting me to say I'm happy about those outcomes? I'm not sure why you would think I would condone such things. However, since you or I don't have any of the facts of the cases, other than your links, I have no choice but to trust our legal system and hope for the best. It's no where near perfect, but it's what our country is based on. The judges should be held accountable for their judgments. They are responsible for the outcome.

The point is when a legal system makes such egregious errors as this.....why would you trust them with anything as important as your ability to defend yourself? At some point an intelligent person says "hey, wait a minute. These people DON'T have my best interests in mind....they have THEIR best interests in mind" and will act accordingly.

 

[BULLDOG]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

Just because it's more complex than you are comfortable with doesn't mean it is inane.
1. Gun nuts see background checks as evidence of "THEY'RE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
2. Gun nuts frantically say "I HAVE TO BUY MORE GUNS NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
3. Gun manufacturers make a fortune.
4. Gun manufacturers give the NRA lots of money to keep telling the GUN NUTS that "THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
For the NRA and gun manufacturers, they see it as "THE CIRCLE OF LIFE?

You just described how UBC would INCREASE profits for gun manufacturers.
.
Can't keep your lies straight, eh?

Now that's stupid. Enacting UBC would quickly prove nobody is taking anybody's guns.

 

[BULLDOG]

[
Cut through the crap. Nobody is trying to stop reasonable gun use. You want military style weapons for the war you want to have with the government. Bunch of crazies led by traitors.

Do you like like this to your kids?

Very rarely. Only when they did really stupid stuff.

So... why do you like like this to us?

Because you are saying really stupid stuff.

 

[westwall]

[


Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

Go read Justice Scalia's explanation of what "a well regulated militia" means in the Heller case. I will give you a hint; it means well provisioned as in having good working firearms and ammo.

That is not open for debate any more. That is settled law. The Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right to keep and bear arms or the right of religion. That issue was put to bed. Membership to a formal militia is not a qualification for the individual right to keep and bear arms according to the Supreme Court. Didn't you get the memo? I know that pissed you Libtards off to no end but sorry about that.

OK ...well regulated means well provisioned with good working firearms and ammo (training too)

How do we know how well provisioned our well regulated militia is without registering them and verifying that they are adequately provisioned and trained

The security of a free state depends on it

The second amendment REQUIRES registration

Quite the opposite in point of fact. The Fourth Amendment covers that particular aspect where it states the government has no business in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

Just because it's more complex than you are comfortable with doesn't mean it is inane.
1. Gun nuts see background checks as evidence of "THEY'RE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
2. Gun nuts frantically say "I HAVE TO BUY MORE GUNS NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
3. Gun manufacturers make a fortune.
4. Gun manufacturers give the NRA lots of money to keep telling the GUN NUTS that "THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
For the NRA and gun manufacturers, they see it as "THE CIRCLE OF LIFE?

You just described how UBC would INCREASE profits for gun manufacturers.
.
Can't keep your lies straight, eh?

Now that's stupid. Enacting UBC would quickly prove nobody is taking anybody's guns.

Yes,, your assertion that UBC will both increase and decrease profits for gun makers is indeed stupid
Work on keeping your lies straight and you;re less likely to be caught.
Better yet -- don't lie.