Jump to content

NRA "Enabler of Death" Video


CdnWingShooter

Recommended Posts

Erik you're a smart well educated guy ....if you wanted to go kill a bunch of innocent people and you didn't have a gun could you devise another way??

Guns kill people like forks make us fat

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

 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

First off--some designs are bad ones and don't meet the criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Ice-T.......the second amendment is to protect us from tyranny. Unless it is repealed constitutionally, there should be no more restrictions on personal arms possessed by law abiding citizens.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Field Grade

This will be my final word on the subject.

Right now I don't see any inkling of any gun control restrictions coming down the pike.

We live in a time when it is incredibly easy for an American without a felony conviction to legally purchase a vast array of firearms: massive hand cannons, assault rifles, .50-cal. African safari guns, old doubleguns, old pumps, old revolvers, oddball necked-down wildcat rifles that require handloads, WWII carbines...the list goes on and on and on.

I grew up like all of you -- in a neighborhood full or WWII vets, my father included. They saw action in Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa, the Philippines and scores of other places.

They saw no need to fill their closets full of machineguns.

Do we need to defend our rights as Americans to bear arms -- a resounding yes!

Does that mean the nation's streets should be awash in deadly weapons to the point that I fear for my 6-year-old's life -- no!

There is a hysteria getting whipped up about taking people's guns... and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it's happening or ever will happen. ZERO evidence!

Why are some people getting duped?

There are so many more things to concern ourselves with ... someone taking my guns away is WAY down on the list...in fact it's not even on the list.

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
LostintheOzone

I always remember this tragic event when I hear people start the anti-gun drum beat.

On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove a truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices opened for the day. Before arriving, he stopped to light a 2 minute fuse. At 09:02, a large explosion destroyed the north half of the building. The explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others.

And lets not forget 9/11.

There are lots of ways to kill people. All it takes is a demented mind and a little planning.

The world was a safer place without commercial aircraft, cars and fertilizer. I don't hear anyone screaming about those.

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Raymond
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.

Not in a million years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could one person please provide the rest of the UJ community with one single shred of evidence that Barack Obama plans on diminishing the power of the 2nd Amendment?

And no, his Supreme Court Justice appointments' record on gun rights doesn't count. You know why? He hired them for more than that one reason! I know this sounds crazy to some of you, but for the POTUS, repealing gun rights is number 8,589 on his agenda, if it's on there at all.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat. It's just that this anti-intellectual fear mongering gets so depressing. I grew up listening to all the slippery slope arguments, and they are, almost without equivocation, the lazy ramblings of someone who doesn't want to face the complicated facts of everyday life.

FWIW, this isn't meant to demean any person on the board, but is a general gripe I have about the tone of gun-rights discourse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When written, the 2nd Amendment allowed the citizens of the country to bear arms, including the most advanced military weapons of the day, the rifled and smooth bore flintlocks.

I'm a black rifle guy, and unapologetic. If I wanted to cause a mass casualty event, it wouldn't be with a rifle cast in a varmint caliber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

"There is a hysteria getting whipped up about taking people's guns... and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it's happening or ever will happen. ZERO evidence!"

Ever hear of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty that Hillary is about to sign?  If ratified by the senate it would pose ominous threats to the 2nd Amendment and supercede that constitutional  right.  In other words a back door attempt to whittle away at the 2nd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PC my answer would be yes. I'd take your proposal. Living in fear in a place awash with guns is not living free, not at all.

More guns means more gun use. Give people power and they will use it. Some will use it without regard to safety. Others will use it with evil intent. As to other methods of killing. Yes there are but guns are the method of choice most times.

  We are not living in the 1700's or 1860's taming a continent.

The founders recognized this reality. Jefferson and Franklin spoke of it. Guns had restrictions placed upon them locally in  towns and cities even then and without general uproar. Back then they had and used more common sense. People who knew and lived (and yes died by gunfire) measured peace and freedom and the goal and need for civilization by establishing laws and courts and law enforcement and the ability to live without carrying such weapons.                        

   In the Old West lawmen came into lawless towns and enacted local laws preventing carrying of arms in town. It was done to curtail rampant shootings. Did it work? Yes.

You say it wouldn't work today. Take Rio. Drugs, money and a huge flood of firearms had the city an open war zone. In desperation emergecy powers and laws were enacted and the firearm roundup started. One year later had the killing ceased? No not entirely but they had been reduced by 500% yes 500%. In one year! If you ease restrictions on gun purchase and ownership you make them available to the wrong people at the same time as well. That is the reality.

 As to AR's and other assault weapons being no different than other sporting weapons? Manufactor them with a box magazine with a 3 shot capacity, no clips. Permanently modify exhisting weapons or confiscate and melt them down.

  Home protection? Deer rifle, Varmint gun, 12 ga I'm fine

Target shooting? You'll manage. Hunting? Ditto.

   Stop the thugs? Institute death penalty or life without parole with conviction of someone committing a violent crime with the use of a firearm. Reduce number and fire rate and capacity,(not one military man worth his salt wouldn't agree these 2 factors increase the killing potential hugely) institute tighter controls on firearm ownership, reduce overall numbers and availability. I think gun crimes would taper down sharply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Spin...still offering the obvious for free..."freely"!

America has a plethora of laws in place that deal with crime that incorporates firearms...and many of these memorialized laws are judged severe. The problem...our liberal judges, in general...DO NOT APPLY the laws on the books. Gangs here in California steal, or buy stolen guns to rule the streets. Laws for you, and me do not apply to criminals in their pursuit of lording over their turf (which they do not own...just "occupy").

"Give a mouse a cookie, and he wil demand a glass of milk..."! Many of us "gun owners" have a real fear (born out by experience) in letting government step all over convention...the convention that made America the greatest nation in man's history. But...this whole issue is muddied by the illegal issues that don't seem to be solveable. Many believe that "Fast and Furious" was a construct by some imbedded in our government to "prove" that guns in America's hands leads to devastation. I think this is nonsense...I think it was a very costly ploy gone very wrong...and some politicians, and appointees should be put away for a very long time for their part in this lunacy! Just to remind those who would cross the line, if they were given an opportunity.

Shotster

ps- Hey Brad...I think UJ should be a "Politically free zone"...but I also believe in the "Tooth Fairy" cause I think I just read his post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik you're a smart well educated guy ....if you wanted to go kill a bunch of innocent people and you didn't have a gun could you devise another way??

Guns kill people like forks make us fat

But guns with clips that hold dozens of rounds kill a lot more people than guns with shorter fixed magazines.  

We aren't vulnerable on the "people kill people, guns don't kill people" argument.  We sure are vulnerable when we allow zero ability to discuss limits.  

This is the type of thing I think sportsmen need to think about.  What do we REALLY need?  For hunting AND personal protection?  Who needs multiple 30 round clips?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trappercase

If ratified by the senate it would pose ominous threats to the 2nd Amendment and supercede that constitutional  right.  In other words a back door attempt to whittle away at the 2nd.

How?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If ratified by the senate it would pose ominous threats to the 2nd Amendment and supercede that constitutional  right.  In other words a back door attempt to whittle away at the 2nd.

How?

It won't. That's speculative hyperbole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Virgil Kane

If ratified by the senate it would pose ominous threats to the 2nd Amendment and supercede that constitutional  right.  In other words a back door attempt to whittle away at the 2nd.

How?

It won't. That's speculative hyperbole.

Well I don't know whether to believe you or Dick Morris but if you understand these things better than I do (I'm no lawyer) you might want to watch this 3 minute clip that Dick Morris did.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog....aty-att

Virgil

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...