Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
CdnWingShooter

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video

Recommended Posts

PWZ
They could give a darn about the victims or their families. Even though they say they are sorry for the families losses it seems nothing more that lip service. I wonder how many of those anti's have said a prayer for those that were lost and their families that are grieving?

Now you're just being absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingman

A friend of mine used to work at the NRA and so I read him the bit about being paranoid and delusional and venomous as a scorpion and asked, "I know you're still delusional, but when you stop working for the NRA do you become less venomous, maybe more like a horseshoe crab than a scorpion, or what? How's that work?"

He didn't really answer me, unless you consider a snorting noise an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg

Ya--I get it. I'm as much an advocate as anyone and I think any restrictions are a bad idea. The old incrementalism strategy is a real one. We 'need' watchmen, because there are idiots and many of them are in Washington. I don't trust any national politician on either side. When the going gets tough or a tide changes, heck if a warm wind blows a whisper of unfavorability the cowardly unprincipled 'gene' multiplies and mutates what appeared to have been a straight shooter into a carpet bagger.

Paying attention with one squeaky eye will tell ya that.

The thing is--Americans love guns and will only be pushed so far.

More than one of their own have been shot and the 2nd remains intact and upheld.

More guns and a greater variety are in the hands of the populace than ever.

Nope--not in this life. Not without a 'major' game changer and this isn't it. Not by a long shot.

Not by a very long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WPG Gizmo

John I agree with you in principal but if you look at gun owners in america and there are a lot of us we are divided into many groups more then we are a whole.  So if the right guy comes along and says we are only going to take away the right to buy ammo over the internet most folks wont care as they buy a box or 2 at

Walmart each hunting season and that is now the camels nose under the tent.  So then this guy say well we dont need to buy military ammo as it is for the military.  So there goes 9mm, 45acp, 223/5.56, 308 and 50Cal and lets not forget 12Ga as these are all current military issue rounds then it becomes Foreign issue rounds of which there are a whole bunch.  Now more of the camel is under the tent wall.  This will keep going on until you can not get ammo and forget about buying powder to make your own that is classified as a explosive by Homeland Security and is no longer for sale anywhere.

Any I being a little overboard with this scenario only time will tell if we stand by and do nothing.  

Gunowners need to stop being just groups of people and start being a driving force for if we dont the old saying together we stand divided we fall will be our epitaph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg

Yup--like I said, "I'm all for vigilance".

My comments aren't meant to suggest we be any less so.

I'm only making an attempt at looking at what is.

I agree that the owners aren't as cohesive as 'we' would like.

This is what makes the 'watchmen' so important.

I look at the NRA the same way I do the antis.

"Shoot for the moon and settle for Chicago"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charlo slim
I look at the NRA the same way I do the antis.

"Shoot for the moon and settle for Chicago"

Pretty much the way I see things also.  One of the interesting things about the "camel's nose"/"slippery slope" sort of argument is that the federal nose has been well into the tent for, what, like 80 years now?. And still, as I understand it anyway, someone of sound character and mental state with an intense desire to own a full auto can do so after background check and licensing, etc.  What of the camel's nose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

Yet another opportunity to say that Zumbo was right all along.

Was he right when he said "assault weapons" were bad........or when he said they were not bad and then even wrote a letter to congress saying they were not bad.

LOL

We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms." This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them.

Hard for me to argue with that.  Jim went on to suggest they be banned from the woods and field as weapons for hunting.  Not so sure about that, but what are we gaining by claiming that we have to have weapons with tactical accessories designed for shooting not game but people, clips which hold dozens of rounds, and the like?  

We succeed in getting the focus for blame placed on sportsmen right along with the most radical of gun nuts who believe the 2nd amendment protects their right to full auto guns with unlimited mag capacity to fend off the jack booted thugs that are just around the corner.  

Which is exactly what the NRA wants--controversy sells memberships and increases the $$ coming in. But as with many things the NRA wants--it's true worth to sportsmen and women is highly questionable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PartridgeCartridge

Let me pose a simple question here.

If we could give up our right to own clearly defined examples of martial weapons... Weapon designs of war... in return for a constitutionally modified right to own sporting designs, clearly defined by law, including pumps,..with a non perishable right to own sporting heritage designs...

Would you be interested in that concept?

Notionally, how does that make you feel?

Edit...I'm only talking long arms here. Not handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg

I think it would satisfy a sub-set of law abiding gun owners, but I'm not sure about the majority.

Personally, I would not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River19
Let me pose a simple question here.

If we could give up our right to own clearly defined examples of martial weapons... Weapon designs of war... in return for a constitutionally modified right to own sporting designs, clearly defined by law, including pumps,..with a non perishable right to own sporting heritage designs...

Would you be interested in that concept?

Notionally, how does that make you feel?

Edit...I'm only talking long arms here. Not handguns.

For the sake of discussion:

For my personal needs this fits my thought process for 90% of what I would like.

The question is how can one walk the fine line for handguns as well?

The problem is I don't believe a rational discussion could ever take place along those lines as neither side trusts the other.  Gun owners would feel that is just a first step to de-arming the nation's law abiding citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Field Grade

PC,

To your question:

This will put me in the minority here... perhaps alone.

But I would be content with giving up weapons of war for sporting arms.

I shot ARs and M60s and various other martial weapons in the Army but don't own any black guns and I never will.

If I have to defend myself and my family, whatever I have in my house right now is plenty enough to bring deadly force to bear.

I honestly can't see all that big of a threat to gun owners right now. You could argue that this president's policies have helped cripple the economy, but I don't see where he's done much to cripple gun rights. In fact, it's legal to bring guns into National Parks now, and concealed carry rights appear to be expanding.

I realize I'm out of step with many gun owners, but I wanted to give a straightforward answer here. For what it's worth, I've arrived at these conclusions after much thought.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg

Interesting thing about 'rational'.

I've known some smart folks in my time and I realized something along the way.

You can be perfectly rational and perfectly logical and be also perfectly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gundogpa

Let me pose a simple question here.

If we could give up our right to own clearly defined examples of martial weapons... Weapon designs of war... in return for a constitutionally modified right to own sporting designs, clearly defined by law, including pumps,..with a non perishable right to own sporting heritage designs...

Would you be interested in that concept?

Notionally, how does that make you feel?

Edit...I'm only talking long arms here. Not handguns.

No.

The second amendment protects firearms to defend yourself.....and has been confirmed recently, twice, by the scotus. It does not say anything about sporting purposes. I am not willing to give up that protection.

No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobman
Let me pose a simple question here.

If we could give up our right to own clearly defined examples of martial weapons... Weapon designs of war... in return for a constitutionally modified right to own sporting designs, clearly defined by law, including pumps,..with a non perishable right to own sporting heritage designs...

Would you be interested in that concept?

Notionally, how does that make you feel?

Edit...I'm only talking long arms here. Not handguns.

NO not ever

our right to bear arms has NO relationship to hunting ....NONE

On a side note I think 22 people were killed last month many more were shot in Chicago a city with the strictest gun control in the country

but the politics dont work so... well you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River19
Let me pose a simple question here.

If we could give up our right to own clearly defined examples of martial weapons... Weapon designs of war... in return for a constitutionally modified right to own sporting designs, clearly defined by law, including pumps,..with a non perishable right to own sporting heritage designs...

Would you be interested in that concept?

Notionally, how does that make you feel?

Edit...I'm only talking long arms here. Not handguns.

No.

The second amendment protects firearms to defend yourself.....and has been confirmed recently, twice, by the scotus. It does not say anything about sporting purposes. I am not willing to give up that protection.

No way.

And this is where emotionally I land.  My rational thinking side thinks PC's proposal is interesting but that 10% of me keeps me in the "not giving anything up" stance if forced to pick a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×