Pro-Gun, Anti-NRA

[nyantler]

Maybe you are right. Maybe we should just call this a gun rights site and start a new hunting site - one that deals with conservation issues.

 

No I meant the part about letting what someone posts bother you so much...

[genesee_mohican]

The NRA fights for the 1st Amendment rights??? I sure hope that was just a mistake.

 

Yes it was. At work, trying to do 5,000 things at once. My deepest apologies.

[Mr VJP]

Don't apologize.  They actually did get involved with a lot of 1st Amendment issues that would've prevented them from speaking out about 2nd Amendment attacks and the politicians behind them.

 

Like it or not, they can claim to be America's oldest civil rights organization, and they do.

 

[nyantler]

I know many "gun owners" who have a rifle and shotgun or 2. They could care less about pistols and assault rifles. These people I know are not anti-gun, but what bugs me about some of the lets call them "gun nuts" is the level they take it to and the will they impose upon those who don't believe it's appropriate to need a 30 round magazine in what is essentially a military rifle.

 

Personally I recognize and support the right to own these guns, but as an organization you have to be very careful you don't go over the deep end and sway those in the middle. Remember the idiots in Arizona walking through the store with ARs on their backs? It builds a stereotype that for some turns into a perception of reality. I think with hunting most americans do not mind us shooting deer and duck and turkey etc. But yes a tournament of killing crows or a bloody deer carcass strapped across the roof a civic can turn people off. Again, I'm not advocating taking away any rights, but some of the extremist on this board need to recognize that sometimes their crusades can go to far and turn people off.

 

What you call extreme may not be extreme to someone else... when we're talking about the 2nd Amendment we're talking about everyone's right to keep and bear arms... not just yours and mine... I don't see anybody imposing their will on me and trying to jamb a 30 round clip down my throat.. I have no use for one, but maybe someone else does... and frankly, it is a weak man that allows any other man to impose their will on him... and you ARE advocating taking away rights when you side with only points of gun ownership and carry laws that YOU think are appropriate and disregard others. Personally I like the stereotype of a gun owner... mainly because I couldn't care less about turning anyone off... sick of the, "carefully what you say and do" ...you don't want to piss off the people that don't like you much anyways BS. Not sure why guys like you buy into that politically correct crap... look it even has you calling fellow gun owners.. "gun nuts"... because they have a different view of the 2nd amendment than you and your "not anti-gun, gun owner"

[PWGUNNY]

I'm a member of the NRA.  They are one of the few organizations that stand up for my gun rights and defend the 2nd amenment.  I love my guns and gun owners need to remember we are a minority.  I know NRA is similar to a corporation and understand they are about marketing and raising money, but they are on my side.

The NRA is not perfect, but they fight for my right.  The NRA supports my rights, not the NFL, NBA, NHL, or all these other organizations that we so willing support with our dollars.

[philoshop]

The anti-gun movement is global, and the intent is to confine any and all firearms ownership and control to nation-states. A quick look at any typical UN meeting agenda should clear that up if you have any doubt.

The US is one of the few nation-states on this planet that has managed to retain firearm ownership privileges for its citizens. In this country it is not just a privilege, but a right that was written into the very framework of our nation for a very specific reason: as a means of defending our other rights from any and all who would have us live by some other framework. That we have managed to survive and thrive for the past hundred or so years of global upheaval is a testament to the greatness of what this country is about, due in large part to those founding principals being held dear by every citizen. Some of the citizens of this country, many in fact, would like to see us become more like the rest of the nation-states on the planet, wherein the concept of 'the greater good' holds primacy over any and all individual rights. There are fine points that can be argued here for sure, but at it's most basic level this is not what this country has ever been about.

 

The NRA works to maintain a very basic right in this country: the right of the people to be able to say "no" to those who would change the country in any fundamental way without due process. The NRA doesn't always get it right in the details, but they're fighting against a global surge that will accept every inch that is handed to them. For this, I support them, and us.

[Mr VJP]

Ban large capacity mags based on "need"?

 

[steve863]

Ban large capacity mags based on "need"?

 

assaultcar.png

 

 

Very poor analogy.  You will never win anyone over with stuff like that.  Those killing people with firearms for the most part had intent, while those killing people with cars for the most part did not.  I for one will NEVER be convinced that one couldn't kill human beings way quicker with firearms, than with anything else that is easily available to the general public.  Not arguing the 2nd amendment or the NRA here, only that it's just stupid to say that one can kill people just as easily with some other object.  There's a reason that the majority of murders are with firearms(stats prove this out).  That's because they are the most efficient at getting the job done.  

[ants]

Very poor analogy.  You will never win anyone over with stuff like that.  Those killing people with firearms for the most part had intent, while those killing people with cars for the most part did not.  I for one will NEVER be convinced that one couldn't kill human beings way quicker with firearms, than with anything else that is easily available to the general public.  Not arguing the 2nd amendment or the NRA here, only that it's just stupid to say that one can kill people just as easily with some other object.  There's a reason that the majority of murders are with firearms(stats prove this out).  That's because they are the most efficient at getting the job done.  

Agreed. But I will never be convinced that a sick piece of crap, who is intent on killing people, will not do so even  if it was somehow impossible for that person  to obtain a firearm. 

[steve863]

Agreed. But I will never be convinced that a sick piece of crap, who is intent on killing people, will not do so even  if it was somehow impossible for that person  to obtain a firearm. 

 

 

The sick piece of crap will, but there are plenty of others who would not have the intestinal fortitude to do it with a knife, club, or any other more hands on methods.  Using a gun is the easiest way, and you can walk away with no blood on your hands.  As I said before, that's why firearms are #1.  

[Mr VJP]

You missed the point.  You don't let the government decide what you "need".  Besides, I never saw a 30 round mag kill anyone.

 

I also believe the last study I saw from the FBI listed firearms about 3rd down the list as well.  You may be wrong about that.  I'll check.

 

Actually it was more people are killed with hammers and clubs than the rifles Cuomo banned.

 

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Mr VJP

[steve863]

 

I also believe the last study I say from the FBI listed firearms about 3rd down the list as well.  You may be wrong about that.  I'll check.

 

 

Yeah, go ahead and check it out.  We've been thru this exercise before on this forum.

[Mr VJP]

I did, go back 1 post.

 

[Mr VJP]

So, what you're saying is you are supporting a handgun ban since they are the problem?

 

[steve863]

VJP, you are simply amazing!!  Leave it up to you to pull things out of your butt to support your nonsense.  Please show me the hammers on this FBI list??  LOL

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

 

And NO, I am not supporting a handgun ban, only telling you the FACTS about what is used in the majority of murders.

 

 

[Mr VJP]

It's right here

 

Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)

 

[ants]

The sick piece of crap will, but there are plenty of others who would not have the intestinal fortitude to do it with a knife, club, or any other more hands on methods.  Using a gun is the easiest way, and you can walk away with no blood on your hands.  As I said before, that's why firearms are #1.  

 And thats why firearms are #1 for self defense. For potential  victims, what difference does it make how they are murdered, assaulted  or attacked?? Your concentrating on the criminal and totally ignoring the innocent victim. Should an elderly or physically weak person be able to use a firearm to defend themselves against a much younger/stronger attacker who is only armed with a little knife or a club or his/her own much stronger hands?? Or should it be an even playing field? Fist Vs. fists, knife Vs. knife, club Vs. club????? 

[steve863]

It's right here

 

Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and that outnumbers the guns??  Dude, what in God's name is wrong with you??   You have the stats right in your face and you are still twisting and turning your BS.

[steve863]

 And thats why firearms are #1 for self defense. For potential  victims, what difference does it make how they are murdered, assaulted  or attacked?? Your concentrating on the criminal and totally ignoring the innocent victim. Should an elderly or physically weak person be able to use a firearm to defend themselves against a much younger/stronger attacker who is only armed with a little knife or a club or his/her own much stronger hands?? Or should it be an even playing field? Fist Vs. fists, knife Vs. knife, club Vs. club????? 

 

 

I was not talking about self defense, only about murders by firearms.  You can take up that discussion with someone else, for that was not the point I was bringing up.

[wildcat junkie]

Should an elderly or physically weak person be able to use a firearm to defend themselves against a much younger/stronger attacker who is only armed with a little knife or a club or his/her own much stronger hands?? Or should it be an even playing field? Fist Vs. fists, knife Vs. knife, club Vs. club????? 

Experience & ruthless treachery will win out over youth & exuberance every time.

 

The mind is a lethal weopon if it is employed properly.  This also applies to the use of firearms for defense, but almost any room is filled with weapons, some of them fixed, some of them not..

Edited December 17, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[Doc]

There's a reason that the majority of murders are with firearms(stats prove this out).  That's because they are the most efficient at getting the job done.  

And using a gun is also most efficient implement for self protection to defend yourself, your family and your home. But there are far too many who are more than happy to force you to be helpless and unarmed and completely at the mercy of anyone who wants what you've got.

 

And no, I don't ever want to be in a position of telling others what kind of weapon they should be choosing for their self defense. That's not my business.

[Mr VJP]

Yeah, and that outnumbers the guns??  Dude, what in God's name is wrong with you??   You have the stats right in your face and you are still twisting and turning your BS.

 

Obviously you are statistical chart challenged and don't comprehend the written word very well.

 

Let me restate what I wrote for you.

 

H A M M E R S  K I L L  M O R E  T H A N  T H E  R I F L E S  C U O M O  B A N N E D  DO !

 

I love people who get so hyped up when they make themselves look stupid.

[ants]

Experience & ruthless treachery will win out over youth & exuberance every time.

 

The mind is a lethal weopon if it is employed properly.  This also applies to the use of firearms for defense, but almost any room is filled with weapons, some of them fixed, some of them not..

This is certainly true for some people but not all. Given the choice I would much rather pull my gun rather than risk doing  a mind meld or trying to incapacitate an assailant with a T.V. tray or a clock radio. When it comes to the life of my family Im going for the best option.

 

And Im no wimp.

Edited December 17, 2014 by ants

[steve863]

And using a gun is also most efficient implement for self protection to defend yourself, your family and your home. But there are far too many who are more than happy to force you to be helpless and unarmed and completely at the mercy of anyone who wants what you've got.

 

And no, I don't ever want to be in a position of telling others what kind of weapon they should be choosing for their self defense. That's not my business.

 

My post 121 applies to you to.   

[Mr VJP]

Getting back to my original point here:  We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

 

I laugh when people say somethings should be banned because they are not needed.  And that argument pretty much imploded against large cap mags with Ferguson, MO.

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Mr VJP