Jump to content

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video


CdnWingShooter

Recommended Posts

To know that is would be nauseating to me; all I had  to see was the name, Bill Moyers and the Huffington Post.

The individual and organization are both steeped in ultra liberal mush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • gundogpa

    17

  • john mcg

    17

  • Spin

    15

  • bobman

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

every factual study has found concealed carry reduces violent crime...Aurora Colorado doesn't allow it....mass kilings have a lot of news coverage....murderers stopped by one CC guy with guts dont fit the medias hunger for sensationalism....gun control doesn't solve anything anyone remember a guy named Timothy McVeigh... some diesel fuel and sawdust is all it takes

If we are going to continue to be free we cannot expect total safety, we must understand  our freedoms come at a cost, life is not risk free

Benjamin Franklin : “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”

Link to post
Share on other sites
charlo slim
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.

So, in good will and just for the sake of discussion.........

If I feel like I need rocket propelled grenades to protect myself and my household, is that right protected?  Not trying to be a smartass here, only trying to explore whether any limitations are in order.  If so, what are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So, in good will and just for the sake of discussion.........

If I feel like I need rocket propelled grenades to protect myself and my household, is that right protected?  Not trying to be a smartass here, only trying to explore whether any limitations are in order.  If so, what are they?

Uh those are already illegal.... be civil and be real this issue is important

I think civil society has the right level of regulation, you can own full auto with careful background checking, same with suppressors, however its odd to me that govt controls noise level in all areas yet restrict that protection for hunting  ( many countries permit or actually require their use like mufflers on vehicles) but thats an aside I guess

Georgia has recently allowed suppressors for some types of hunting, I have a very high degree of hearing loss so this issue is important for me

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So, in good will and just for the sake of discussion.........

If I feel like I need rocket propelled grenades to protect myself and my household, is that right protected?  Not trying to be a smartass here, only trying to explore whether any limitations are in order.  If so, what are they?

The scotus has said that reasonable restrictions are allowed.......like fully automatic weapons which require a class three license for example. Tanks, f16's and daisy cutters fall in that catagory.

I agree with the scotus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh what the heck, I'll try - maybe, possibly, a rational response or two will follow.

Here is something that has bothered me.  I hear from a substantial subset of my friends, and read on Facebook, and other forums, etc. that we should be outraged, absolutely disgusted, that the Fast and Furious debacle resulted in the death of a U.S. border agent and numerous Mexican citizens.  

Some of these same people, with no apparent cognitive dissonance, say such things as guns don't kill people, people do.  

How does Fast and Furious have anything to do with Agent Terry's death if the blame can't be, at least partly placed, on the access to weapons provided by the program...

Link to post
Share on other sites
charlo slim
.... be civil and be real this issue is important

Sorry, I thought I was.

Over and out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh what the heck, I'll try - maybe, possibly, a rational response or two will follow.

Here is something that has bothered me.  I hear from a substantial subset of my friends, and read on Facebook, and other forums, etc. that we should be outraged, absolutely disgusted, that the Fast and Furious debacle resulted in the death of a U.S. border agent and numerous Mexican citizens.  

Some of these same people, with no apparent cognitive dissonance, say such things as guns don't kill people, people do.  

How does Fast and Furious have anything to do with Agent Terry's death if the blame can't be, at least partly placed, on the access to weapons provided by the program...

I don't see the two points lining up.

Fast and furious put those guns in the hands of bad guys as a strategy. If I understand things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately it comes down to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,  what were the founding father's intentions for firearm ownership by the populace having just defeated the most powerful nation on earth and obtaing their independence, in large part accomplished with irregular forces armed with their personal weapons.

Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is there to preserve the right of the people to act if and when necessary?

I personally could live with restrictions on the ownership of "assault style weapons" but am unable to proffer a definition that would not impact current sporting arms.  Does seem logical to me that magazines etc could validly be restricted as are fully automatic weapons today.

I, like many, am more concerned about Ammunition purchase restrictions.  I purchased 5,000 rounds of sporting clays ammo this year.  To some that would set off alarm bells.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh what the heck, I'll try - maybe, possibly, a rational response or two will follow.

Here is something that has bothered me.  I hear from a substantial subset of my friends, and read on Facebook, and other forums, etc. that we should be outraged, absolutely disgusted, that the Fast and Furious debacle resulted in the death of a U.S. border agent and numerous Mexican citizens.  

Some of these same people, with no apparent cognitive dissonance, say such things as guns don't kill people, people do.  

How does Fast and Furious have anything to do with Agent Terry's death if the blame can't be, at least partly placed, on the access to weapons provided by the program...

Well fast and furious had a goal of putting them in criminal hands.......no one believes we should allow criminals to have any guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

yip, I have hunted all my life. I have never seen the need for any gun that I didn't use hunting. I have lots of shotguns and will buy more but have no need for a assault weapon. I don't own a pistol but see the value of them. I am also one of the left wing weeny wingnuts some of you talk so much about. I hurt as much as you do for the needless loss of life. Especially the youth that were victims of a TRUE wingnut.

Billy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately it comes down to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,  what were the founding father's intentions for firearm ownership by the populace having just defeated the most powerful nation on earth and obtaing their independence, in large part accomplished with irregular forces armed with their personal weapons.

Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is there to preserve the right of the people to act if and when necessary?

I personally could live with restrictions on the ownership of "assault style weapons" but am unable to proffer a definition that would not impact current sporting arms.  Does seem logical to me that magazines etc could validly be restricted as are fully automatic weapons today.

I, like many, am more concerned about Ammunition purchase restrictions.  I purchased 5,000 rounds of sporting clays ammo this year.  To some that would set off alarm bells.

Take a casual deer hunter.....he might say I don't believe anyone should be able to buy 5000 rounds a year. You don't need to shoot that much. 100 a year is plenty. That is a reasonable amount.

Are you OK with that?

Maybe you don't need mags or ar style rifles.....but a guy who is shooting 3 gun tournaments sure does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"fast and furious" was an badly bungled attempt to sway public opinion by the " gun control" advocates.... its about control and political advantage and has nothing to do about public safety and never did

virtually all guns were assault weapons at one point in history, my muzzle loader was at one point in history an "assault" weapon... so is the remington 870, we were issued them back in the day

heck long bows were an assault weapon in England and a an effective one

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh what the heck, I'll try - maybe, possibly, a rational response or two will follow.

Here is something that has bothered me.  I hear from a substantial subset of my friends, and read on Facebook, and other forums, etc. that we should be outraged, absolutely disgusted, that the Fast and Furious debacle resulted in the death of a U.S. border agent and numerous Mexican citizens.  

Some of these same people, with no apparent cognitive dissonance, say such things as guns don't kill people, people do.  

How does Fast and Furious have anything to do with Agent Terry's death if the blame can't be, at least partly placed, on the access to weapons provided by the program...

Well fast and furious had a goal of putting them in criminal hands.......no one believes we should allow criminals to have any guns.

I'm not sure.  When I listen it sure sounds to me like some people are saying that measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals will have no effect,  because criminals are going to do bad things anyway (or something like that.  I'm not sure what the argument is.  It just comes across as - don't dare think the availability of guns has anything to do with the gun violence...)

In this particular case in Colorado I have read and heard people say that it wouldn't have mattered whether he had a gun or not, he would have devised some other way to wreak havoc.

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



×
×
  • Create New...