Mr VJP

Myths about the NRA Myth 1: The NRA represents gun manufacturers. One of the most pervasive myths about NRA is that it represents firearm manufacturers. It doesn't. It represents firearm owners. Firearm manufacturers are represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Yes, manufacturers often contribute money to the Association or raffle/contest prizes to one of its many programs, but NRA-at its heart-is a non-profit civil rights organization. As for firearms manufacturers, their size and cash reserves are grossly overestimated by those who oppose gun rights. A firearm is an extremely durable product with a very long service life, and is a big-ticket item for most consumers, limiting sales. Unless a firearm manufacturer is also a defense or law-enforcement contractor with domestic and/or foreign government contracts, it is typically a small operation; certainly nowhere near being a Fortune 500 company. Myth 2: The NRA's power rests in how much money it gives out to candidates. Many gun-control advocates seem to have trouble believing that someone would disagree with them on a subject like gun control and that, if someone does, it must be the result of greed. The truth is that the NRA's power comes not from distributing cash, but from producing votes. NRA members are politically informed and engaged, and vote in extremely high numbers. Moreover, many are single-issue voters who have arrived at the understanding that their opinions on any other subject are potentially moot without the Second Amendment backing them up. Myth 3: The NRA's influence is grossly disproportionate to its membership numbers. This miscalculation is based on the actual number of paid NRA memberships. It fails to consider the practical realities of non-profit advocacy. Not every family can afford separate memberships for each member of the family. Many households have only one "official" member, but everyone in the home reads the NRA Official Journal and supports the Association in spirit. During times of economic hardship, organization memberships are often viewed as a luxury and are voluntarily suspended by annual members until things improve. Further, when the political situation is "good" for gun owners (for example, when there is a pro-gun administration in Washington), gun owners feel safe and often allow their memberships to lapse. And, of course, some people just aren't "joiners." They believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but, for whatever reason, don't formally join advocacy organizations, though they vote in support of the Second Amendment. So, while NRA may have "only" 5 million members, each of those represents many like-minded folks who turn out come Election Day and cast votes in preservation of their rights. Myth 4: Polls show that most Americans disagree with NRA and want more gun control. The mainstream press often cites polls showing Americans support gun control. Don't believe them. First of all, many of these polls are conducted immediately following highly publicized mass shootings, when people respond emotionally. Also, you have to know is how the poll was conducted and how questions were posed. If asked, simply "Are you in favor of gun control?" a person on the street may say yes. However, if you pose the question "Do you favor more gun control legislation or the enforcement of existing laws?" that same person may favor the latter. We also must consider whether we really want Constitutional rights determined via polling. The Bill of Rights protects the individual from "the tyranny of the majority." The Second Amendment doesn't say "Good poll numbers being essential to good public policy, the right of the people ... ." Are we forbidden from practicing a certain religion because it's not trending well? Do we give up the right to read a good book because it's fallen into disfavor among the majority?

And guess who it thinks is the biggest threat to America now. "Washington-and the mainstream media- is wondering what they're going to do with what is now, essentially, a single-issue administration. With his announcement last week that he will not offer any campaign or political support to any elected official not backing the President's "common sense" gun control measures, Mr. Obama has made it clear that there's nothing more important to his administration in their final year in the White House. If you're a North Korean leader, ISIS terrorist or even Vladimir Putin, those words are music to your ears. Now you won't even have to bother giving lip service to a United States president who's already shown himself "distanced" from what's happening in the rest of the world. That might not be comforting words to our allies, but they're already painfully aware that for the most part they've been working without a net where the U.S. is concerned anyway. But if you're expecting to hear the sound of the gun industry heading for their hideaways and barring the doors, well, you'd better think again. That's because the industry, and most of the rest of the planet, realize that if you're an elected official in the largest part of the country and suddenly about-face on the Second Amendment, you're soon going to be looking for a mover to get your personal property out of the House and Senate office buildings. Mr. Obama has, essentially, staked out a claim squarely in the middle of fatal terrain. Barring some amazing turnaround, despite polling data that might seem to contradict this position, not many average Americans are ready to abrogate their abilities to defend themselves simply because some group of pols says they have to "do something" about gun violence." Patriot Post

Monticello? That town has a lot more hood rats than rednecks.

Then women accusing Bill Clinton of rape weren't "willing". Funny how Democrats don't seem to know what "No" means. Some people don't seem to understand what the word "consenting" means either. If someone claims they were raped, they weren't consenting.

First, we don't know if Hillary was having an affair at the time, and second, she chose to defend her husband and vilify the women he raped, abused or took advantage of. She even went beyond that and did everything she could to destroy them. All of this is relevant now, because she now wants to be President.

Then there are the morons on this site who don't believe the Constitution applies to anything today, because it's an old, outdated, living, piece of paper than needs to be scrapped to install the Rule of Men. They overlook all the court rulings that prove them wrong and enumerate inalienable rights. They also overlook all the court rulings that don't support their desire to eliminate the Constitution. Funny how these are also the guys who claim others don't correctly interpret it.

No Watergate. She was fired from the legal investigation for malfeasance.

This is basically the heart of the matter as far as the Constitution is concerned: It defines the "Property Clause" regarding federal land ownership. It's a long and convoluted history, that is the reason today's controversy exits. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

He dismissed as "a conspiracy" any desire he has to take guns. It's probably true that he wouldn't actually try to confiscate guns, knowing that would likely spark outright civil war, but he's the one who has often praised Australia's gun confiscation as a model we should look at. He's also the one hawking the ban on so-called "assault weapons," which number in the millions. Besides, no one thinks he or the Left will stop with a little "progress." It will never be enough; we'll always need more "common sense" gun control, eroding Liberty incrementally. Justice Joseph Story once called the 2nd Amendment the "palladium of the liberties of the republic." In other words, owning guns isn't primarily about hunting, sport shooting, or even stopping criminals. Bearing arms secures all of the rights of a free people against tyrannical government. That's why Obama and his ilk hate guns so much, and that's why no town hall will ever find common ground between tyrants like him and the Patriots who hold Liberty so dear.

All part of the plan to make owning a firearm so confusing, cumbersome and expensive, people will just not want to bother. Especially when every miniscule legal infraction can put you in prison for 10 years. The 2nd Amendment prevents anti's from banning all guns, but it doesn't stop them from infringing on the right as much as they can get away with. Thanks to activist judges, they are getting away with a lot. It's ironic their desire to push "gun safety" is going to wind up getting a lot of people killed in the long run.

Legally, the fed can't own land. But they sure do own a lot of it. Delaware Water Gap comes to mind in our area.

The death penalty should be used in all "proven beyond doubt" capital murder cases, for the simple reason these criminals do not deserve to be kept alive at huge taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. They have not earned that privilege and it's a huge WASTE of tax dollars. It ain't cheap to house someone in prison for decades.

How does a person go from defending government ownership of huge amounts of land, to questioning why an article doesn't go into the Native American issue? And the article does say this: In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Obama and all of the anti-gun crowd are well aware of these facts. The "spin" cycle has been running at full throttle from the day Obama was elected. The lies and distortions of the truth are being repeated every day with the hope the majority of citizens will believe them. Sadly, the majority of citizens today DO believe them! Count yourself as one of the intelligent citizens in this land if you do not believe the lies.

This is all you need to know if you don't think this morons EO is designed to take as many firearms from responsible Americans as possible. It is intentionally vague in so many areas, it can be used to confiscate guns from ANYONE! And why is it needed in the first place? Is crime that far out of control? How about we look at murders? For the record: "There reportedly are more than 300 million privately owned guns floating around the USA. If just 1 percent of those guns were used to kill someone every year, there would be 3 million gun homicides in the United States. In 2014, according to the FBI, there were 8,124 gun homicides. It’s still way too many, and most of them are in cities or states with strict gun laws. But if my calculator is correct, that means 0.00002708 per cent of the guns in America were used in 2014 to kill someone and .99998 percent were not. I don’t know how many knives and sharp objects there are in the United States, but in 2014 about 1,561 of them were used to murder someone. Is an executive action on knife control next on the president’s emotional bucket list? Clubs and hammers? Didn’t Cain kill Abel with a rock?" —Michael Reagan So if those are the facts, why isn't the moron writing an EO that would actually target crime? We all know the truth. The Progressive agenda is to take firearms rights away from citizens. They've said it out loud many times. Many have called for a total ban on guns. Obama said he likes what they did in Australia. You have to be a complete fool to assume he hasn't got confiscation in mind as he implements this EO and all of it's vague possibilities.

You probably don't know any of the truth about how the NRA fights against killers getting firearms. http://www.chicksontheright.com/the-nra-has-responded-to-obamas-executive-order-today-must-watch/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obamas-vague-rule-anyone-engaged-business-selling-firearms-must-be-licensed?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=n-obama-vaguerule

For the record: "The [Obama] administration has overseen a striking drop in prosecutions of gun crimes, winning only about 6,000 convictions in 2015 — down more than 15 percent from five years ago. ... Part of the reason is prosecutors are simply bringing fewer cases." —The Washington Times ("For every elected or registered Democrat who actually wants to prosecute criminals, there are dozens who would rather prosecute the NRA and Republican politicians. Because they don't care about the crime. Or the criminals. Just their own political agenda. And that agenda is to disarm you." —Caleb Howe)

The trouble with that is, it's Obama deciding who should not have guns!!

Even if every firearm you ever bought or sold, or will buy or sell, used a licensed FFL dealer, under this new "Executive Order", you may now be subject to scrutiny and inspection by the BATFE at any time in the future. Those 200 new agents are going to be talking to people who sell guns now. And they are going to say you "may" be in the "business" and they want to inspect your home and your firearms. Should you refuse to cooperate, things will go very badly for you. Should you decide to fully cooperate, you may see yourself cited for a violation of FFL rules and have your entire firearm inventory confiscated. It will be on you to hire a lawyer, absorb huge legal fees and prove your innocence. Years later you may actually have your guns and your rights restored. This is what Obama has implemented. Give it time if you think that's not the case.

For the record: "The [Obama] administration has overseen a striking drop in prosecutions of gun crimes, winning only about 6,000 convictions in 2015 — down more than 15 percent from five years ago. ... Part of the reason is prosecutors are simply bringing fewer cases." —The Washington Times ("For every elected or registered Democrat who actually wants to prosecute criminals, there are dozens who would rather prosecute the NRA and Republican politicians. Because they don't care about the crime. Or the criminals. Just their own political agenda. And that agenda is to disarm you." —Caleb Howe)

It doesn't upset me, it saddens me. It's sad to know there are so many citizens in this land who support removing rights from responsible law abiding Americans so the government can enlarge it's power and control over everyone. "Behind Over"??? Real class And your spelling hasn't improved either. But many citizens are sadly just as mindless, so take heart. I would like to see you actually address the points I make with counter facts, just once. But then again, I'd also like to marry a woman with big breasts who owns a liquor store, but I don't think I'm going to get that either.

Guns aren’t the problem, people are. Evil is the natural, fallen state of humanity. Sin is what’s wrong with folks, not guns. More laws restricting the Second Amendment are just a band aid on a sliced artery because they do not address the real problem. It should seem obvious to those who possess basic critical thinking skills that the president is just using all of this to yet again move the progressive agenda forward. Unfortunately, there are many folks who will actually fall for this junk, thanks in large part to being duped by liberal indoctrination.

I am strongly against anti-NRA stupidity, where clueless lemming parrot the same dumb talking points every anti-gun idiot in public service says every day. Lies, not matter how often repeated, are still lies. There is absolutely no evidence, legal or moral, to support any accusation of enabler, nor is there a "gun crime crises" as crime has been declining for years, nor can anyone define what is "sensible" when it come to destroying inalienable rights! Some people are against common sense. They also happen to be for more gun control.

More than enough, more recoil and muzzle blast too. But, more than capable of taking deer if you can shoot it accurately. Would I advise a new deer hunter to use one? No. Would I tell someone who uses one not to? No. It's a legal deer hunting implement. Your choice.