• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are NRA members generally more dangerous people than non members? [W:629]

Are NRA members generally more dangerous people than non members?

  • Total voters
    96
MSgt said:
I know. I began developing a bad attitude towards the population somewhere around 2004, during a rough deployment, and while our fearless civilian leadership back in the United States was arguing important matters like whether or not tomato paste was a vegetable. Crap's just gotten worse and worse as they bicker and forth and declare everything an enemy and a threat to their personal little lives.
Click to expand...

Your personal history aside that is true, things do seem worse. In some cases they are, in others they are not. It is just a media (right and left) looking for ratings and pushing an agenda. It is by far the main reason things look so bleak. Never in human history have we had access to so much information so fast. It's helping and hurting us at the same time. What we have to do is take the help while mitigating the hurt. Baby steps.

So with that, you have a good one.
 
MSgt said:
Or takes pictures with their kids holding guns that are too big for them. Or places weapon stickers on their trucks to represent their family members. Or heads out to buy their fourth AR-15 for "home protection." Or calls themselves a collector because they have thirty firearms, which mostly just amounts to amassing, not collecting. Or when one's first response to a mass shooting is "not my guns!"
Click to expand...

How many AR-15's someone owns for lawful purposes is none of your damn business, period. Someones responce to a shooting is again none of your business. Until thought crime is a thing, you got nothing.
 
Black Dog said:
How many AR-15's someone owns for lawful purposes is none of your damn business, period. Someones responce to a shooting is again none of your business. Until thought crime is a thing, you got nothing.
Click to expand...

Um, I merely defined what a gun nut is. Dry your tears. Nobody is coming for your bang bangs.
 
Goshin said:
Thank you.

If #1 is correct, in that they have called for something that broad based, I would also have a problem with it.

2... while the devil is in the details I have long said we messed up in the 80s when we closed down most of the state asylums and de-funded a lot of mental health. Granted there were abuses in the past... but in LE I encountered many individuals who clearly *needed* to be institutionalized rather than in prison, but there were no beds to be had for them.

3... well I just flat disagree that this is a racial issue.
Click to expand...

#2 needs to be hammered until it's rectified.

You know why LE couldn't get that nut that shot up Parkland in an institution? They've mostly (if not all) been defunded and closed.
 
MSgt said:
Um, I merely defined what a gun nut is. Dry your tears. Nobody is coming for your bang bangs.
Click to expand...

None of those makes anyone a "gun nut" was my point. What you defined is: a does not understand what a right is cry baby. I never said a thing about anyone taking anything.
 
apdst said:
Liberals do that a lot. Just look at the congress critters they elect.
Click to expand...

Hell...look at the stumbling clown they nominated for president.

That’s the laughable part. Leftists say stupid **** like “hurrr...look at Trump! Silly republicans!” But then when their own clown car of candidates is pointed out their MOST intelligent response is “whataboutism!!!! That’s whataboutism!!!!!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Black Dog said:
None of those makes anyone a "gun nut" was my point. What you defined was what a does not understand what a right is cry baby. I never said a thing about anyone taking anything.
Click to expand...

Then you should have stated that...as your point...instead of whining about what is and is not my business as if you were personally wounded by my declarations of what a gun nut is.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Anyone that poses with a gun in their Facebook profile picture. Bonus points if they are shirtless.
Click to expand...

And define how they are dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MSgt said:
Then you should have stated that...as your point...instead of whining about what is and is not my business as if you were personally wounded by my declarations of what a gun nut is.
Click to expand...

You are right, forgive me. Next time I will just point put how over the top your post is.
 
VanceMack said:
Hell...look at the stumbling clown they nominated for president.

That’s the laughable part. Leftists say stupid **** like “hurrr...look at Trump! Silly republicans!” But then when their own clown car of candidates is pointed out their MOST intelligent response is “whataboutism!!!! That’s whataboutism!!!!!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One really should drop the partisan goggles:

1) Bernie Sanders was a very close second in the Primaries, meaning that a substantial number of liberals did not want Clinton nominated at all.

2) A large number of Democrats abstained from voting in the General election because of Clinton, thereby helping Trump's victory.

So, liberals were not enthused at all with Clinton. The record is clear that liberals tended to stay more true to their identities. On the other hand, Trump received 14 million votes in the Primary against Rubio's mere 7 million. This means that Conservatives were very clear of the garbage they wanted as far back as the Primaries, even as he denigrated American POWs, denigrated the handicapped, denigrated women, and represented a Christian/conservative anti-thesis.
 
X Factor said:
Off the top of my head, I say in the sense of being more likely to commit acts of lethal violence.
Click to expand...

In what context?

Yes NRA members are more likely than pacifists and servile slaves to shoot people who invade their homes to assault rape and kill.

 
MSgt said:
One really should drop the partisan goggles:

1) Bernie Sanders was a very close second in the Primaries, meaning that a substantial number of liberals did not want Clinton nominated at all.

2) A large number of Democrats abstained from voting in the General election because of Clinton, thereby helping Trump's victory.

So, liberals were not enthused at all with Clinton. The record is clear that liberals tended to stay more true to their identities. On the other hand, Trump received 14 million votes in the Primary against Rubio's mere 7 million. This means that Conservatives were very clear of the garbage they wanted as far back as the Primaries, even as he denigrated American POWs, denigrated the handicapped, denigrated women, and represented a Christian/conservative anti-thesis.
Click to expand...

And most republicans weren’t enthused with Trump. The election STILL has come down to one thing. The Supreme Court. And like Trump or not, the conservative choice for SCOTUS was better than any candidate Hilary would have submitted. The economy is booming, despite the best efforts and wishes of leftists to derail it. 2 years of bleating on about Trump/Russia and the only US/Russian relations have been contentious at BEST.

The next election will potentially break down along the same lines. The economy, illegal immigration, and a push to a globalist/leftist agenda. Odds are, as much as people despise Trump he will be re-elected, especially if the democrats nominate another candidate that is so ****ty they actually make him look good. My only hope is the Libertarians don’t nominate Johnson again and promote a legit candidate. Otherwise, I’ll vote independent again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
Yup - I did not think you would care about fascistic leaning authoritarians backed by the NRA and the pushing of an extremist agenda. :doh:roll:Thanks for confirming that suspicion. :2wave::peace
Click to expand...

So again, you are suggesting that merely defending our second amendment rights is dangerous and extremist? Why?
 
VanceMack said:
And most republicans weren’t enthused with Trump. The election STILL has come down to one thing. The Supreme Court. And like Trump or not, the conservative choice for SCOTUS was better than any candidate Hilary would have submitted. The economy is booming, despite the best efforts and wishes of leftists to derail it. 2 years of bleating on about Trump/Russia and the only US/Russian relations have been contentious at BEST.

The next election will potentially break down along the same lines. The economy, illegal immigration, and a push to a globalist/leftist agenda. Odds are, as much as people despise Trump he will be re-elected, especially if the democrats nominate another candidate that is so ****ty they actually make him look good. My only hope is the Libertarians don’t nominate Johnson again and promote a legit candidate. Otherwise, I’ll vote independent again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. When Trump beats the second place Republican by doubling the number of votes in the Primaries, it seems clear enough that most Republicans were quite thrilled with Trump long before Clinton was even an issue. And Romney was right. Anyone else would have destroyed Clinton in the General. Because of Trump, Clinton almost won, which means that Trump's sweeping nomination in the Primaries risked the Supreme Court nomination. And to this day, most Republicans remain enthused as they try to foist anything and everything to the glory of Trump's being.

And the economy is booming because it began booming in the summer of 2016 all over the world. You know this. Liberals aren't derailing anything. Trump is derailing the trend of recovery. What do you think a significant reduction in Government revenue, combined with increased government spending, comes to? The two things are in contradiction. In routine business, such a thing pushes towards bankruptcy.

I don't know what is going on with this Russia/Trump thing. The whole thing bores me.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
i don't think so. they're much more likely to shoot their toe off than to shoot me.
Click to expand...

Not an accurate statement. Most NRA members are not only well qualified in gun use, but gun safety as well. The NRA provides such training all over the USA


however, gun hobbyists tend to one issue vote
Click to expand...

Even if you think so, I find that admirable considering how important the second amendment is. Without it, the 1st amendment would not likely survive.


even if the candidate is a cartoonishly unfit for office drooling idiot.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the candidate that the democrats ran against him? Hillary could not walk down a flight of stairs, get in a campaign van, or an airplane without falling down. She could barely give a campaign speech without going into a coughing fit, and my bet is that she did and still does alot of drooling.
 
ObamacareFail said:
So again, you are suggesting that merely defending our second amendment rights is dangerous and extremist? Why?
Click to expand...

Not at all and that is not my position now and never has been my position.
 
haymarket said:
Yup - I did not think you would care about fascistic leaning authoritarians backed by the NRA and the pushing of an extremist agenda. :doh:roll:Thanks for confirming that suspicion. :2wave::peace
Click to expand...

Hmm... is that the same extremist federal agenda that has existed since the 1994 AWB law expired? What folks fail to address is why "see something, say something" failed to get known to be dangerous folks prevented from roaming freely among us. Homicidal maniac control is needed - not more "gun control" which prevents law abiding folks from keeping their 2A rights.
 
MSgt said:
I'm not so sure about that. When Trump beats the second place Republican by doubling the number of votes in the Primaries, it seems clear enough that most Republicans were quite thrilled with Trump long before Clinton was even an issue. And Romney was right. Anyone else would have destroyed Clinton in the General. Because of Trump, Clinton almost won.

And the economy is booming because it began booming in the summer of 2016 all over the world. Liberals aren't derailing anything. Trump is derailing the trend of recovery. What do you think a significant reduction in Government revenue combined with increased government spending Bill comes to? The two things are in contradiction. In routine business, such a thing pushes towards bankruptcy.

I don't know what is going on with this Russia/Trump thing. The whole thing bores me.
Click to expand...

‘Most’ republicans didn’t vote for Trump. Of those that voted, most did. But your comments ignore the reality that Trump spawned an entire movement WITHIN the GOP of never Trumpers and their number is not small. There are a substantial number of elected republicans that publicly oppose Trump. Elected Democrats eat **** regardless of who their candidate is.

There is no comparison with the gains the economy has made prior to vs since his election. And spending? Getda****outtheah...the moment a leftist pretends to give a **** about spending you can bet in one thing...it’s a republican doing the spending. But none of that is relevant and I think you know that. If the economy is thriving in 2020, Trump will be re-elected. If not, he won’t. Personally...I hope he doesn’t run. But even if he doesn’t I have no confidence either of the two parties will provide a candidate worth a ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom