Attacking the NRA Is Really Attacking Everyday Americans

[VanceMack]

No one has any business using an AR15 for home defense use either. A simple handgun will do just fine. It’s ridiculous.

There are numerous incidents where homeowners have used ARs to defend their homes and the simple fact is it’s not your ****ing business what I use to defend my home. More importantly, there is no way you can read the 2nd Amendment and think it is talking about home defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

:lamo We don’t hold the world hostage. The world is just fine dealing with their own crap. As for the US, the NRA defends the rights of 120 million gun owning Americans. So you bet...the NRA defends Americans that are being attacked by mindless leftist ****s promoting gun control measures they know won’t do a damn bit of good. The NRA is absolutely defending our freedoms. Those freedoms were deemed so important and necessary that they were SPECIFICALLY written into the Constitution. And you bet...leftists in this country have already laid out their intent to ban not just ARs but every semiautomatic weapon out there. For starters. And yes...indeed...not only the head of the NRA but the founding fathers also agreed that the freedoms we enjoy are ordained of God. It’s unfortunate that there has to be a writ that guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens...but there it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what are the merits of the right spelled out in the constitution?

 

[Casper]

I didn’t miss it. You did. You said we already have good background checks. Obviously, most people don’t believe we do. Even NRA members. So why are you playing silly word games when people are dying?

No I actually did not miss it or I would have not pointed it out to you after you asked, are you playing stupid? The background checks are fine, what is not working is the reporting system, but then again you already are aware of that. Requiring private sales to all be background checked is unenforceable, maybe at gun shows the handful that are sold that way may be, but the idea of requiring personal sales to do it is ludicrous, and as I said there is no way to enforce that without all guns having been registered and they are not and never will be. If you really want something done to make people safe then you would be pushing hard to get security within our schools and pushing for better methods of identifying those with issues and getting them help. Funny thing I do not see you doing that, you must not really care about those dying, so there must be a different agenda, I wonder what that is............

 

[Casper]

No one has any business using an AR15 for home defense use either. A simple handgun will do just fine. It’s ridiculous.

Then you stick with a handgun, but when I go walk out on my property at 3 am because sensors are going off I will bring an AR. You can make your choice and I will continue to make mine, and there is not a thing you can do to change that.

 

[VanceMack]

And what are the merits of the right spelled out in the constitution?

I suppose you could read it in the preamble but the beauty of the Constitution is that the rights of the citizen above government are assumed and therefore guaranteed. Which is why it’s so ludicrous that so many leftist believe in infringing the right to Keenan’s bear arms. If the imposition of stricture on the right to free speech or other specifically guaranteed rights were placed in the manner suggested are appropriate for the 2nd, leftists would literally **** kittens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

I suppose you could read it in the preamble but the beauty of the Constitution is that the rights of the citizen above government are assumed and therefore guaranteed. Which is why it’s so ludicrous that so many leftist believe in infringing the right to Keenan’s bear arms. If the imposition of stricture on the right to free speech or other specifically guaranteed rights were placed in the manner suggested are appropriate for the 2nd, leftists would literally **** kittens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already read the 2nd Amendment. So again, can you defend it on its merits?

 

[haymarket]

Nope, in fact many gun owners are not NRA members, I am not and only know one person that is and most people I know are gun owners. I think you are taking a huge leap of faith in the hope that you are correct.

Public opinion polls bear me out.

 

[haymarket]

Funny how you can't even make out a red map. Do you deny that 2/3's of the country has Republican governors and Republican state legislatures, and that's not even talking about the federal government.

You lied. Here is what you said

Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
Ummmmmmmmmm. The one that shows the country is all red.

Even the grossly distorted map you provided is not ALL RED as you claimed.

Why did you lie about that when it was so easy to prove you were committing a falsehood? ?

 

[haymarket]

Your statement proves how little you know about gun owners.

Most of us are not NRA members.......but we are quite happy to have the NRA out there taking the lead in protecting our rights.

We sure as hell don't want any rights taken away from us and we know that when the gun-haters get a victory they will waste no time in moving on to the next demand to take away MORE of our rights.

So, don't think of it in terms of just NRA members........think in terms of the 42% of households in America that have guns for self-defense and recreation.

And that number, by the way, is growing as more people, especially women, are drawn to the comfort of having a gun to protect themselves in an increasingly dangerous world.

Us gun owners appreciate and agree with the NRA......even those of the 42% who have not actually become members.

We know who our friends are.

And the public opinion polls presented show how must gun owners do not even support some positions taken by the NRA.

I know lots of people who are gun owners. And none that I know of share the NRA positions on many gun issues.

 

[haymarket]

So, you admit that the huge majority of the country is red. That wasn't so hard, was it?

The question never was a huge majority of land or territory.

Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
Ummmmmmmmmm. The one that shows the country is all red.

You claimed ALL RED. Why did you lie?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Then you stick with a handgun, but when I go walk out on my property at 3 am because sensors are going off I will bring an AR. You can make your choice and I will continue to make mine, and there is not a thing you can do to change that.

Why walk into possible danger when you can call a cop and let him do it, while you defend your castle from inside?

 

[Vox]

And the public opinion polls presented show how must gun owners do not even support some positions taken by the NRA.

I know lots of people who are gun owners. And none that I know of share the NRA positions on many gun issues.

Sure.

In any organization or group of people with similar interests there will be differences of opinion on a few things, but the vast majority of gun owners (and indeed, most Americans) are in favor of the NRA in general.

And don't be fooled by public opinion polls with questions that are designed to elicit responses critical of the NRA or the polls that say Americans want stronger gun laws.

Many of us want stronger gun laws but some of us who answer that way want harsher prison sentences for thugs and stop and frisk laws and the death penalty for thugs who use guns against cops.......so that poll can be VERY misleading.

 

[Perotista]

Here is the deeper reason: When something is easy and fun to do, people will do it.

When my kid was little, he saw that if he scratched on his toy blackboard with a metal gadget he had, it made a horrible noise that would make everyone's hair stand on end and get a rise out of everyone. So he kept doing it once in a while. He thought it was hilarious. So we put the metal gadget out of reach on a top shelf.

Out of sight, out of mind. Problem solved.

I think killing is a bit different. If I wanted to kill a bunch and didn't care whom they were, no gun, then a bomb. Easy to make and has been done in the past. Better with a timer on it, I don't have to be anyplace near. Then there is arson, once again setting a fire is relative easy. How about some chemicals, a little knowledge about household chemicals can be gained via the internet. I'm sure there are many other means, tools, that if one is motivated enough, one will find a way.

 

[Evilroddy]

From the Washington Post, of all places:

Yep. And they vote, too.

LowDown:

We should take the author's argument with some caution and skepticism as in 2010 he wrote and released a book endorsing "enhanced interrogation methods" as a legitimate tool of state policy. This goes to his moral character as a defender of people's rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black,_Manafort,_Stone_and_Kelly

The great majority of NRA members are responsible, conscientious and fine Americans who legitimately own and enjoy guns. However the NRA's leadership and a significant minority of its membership are not responsible nor conscientious in their public advocacy and in their methods of promoting that advocacy. They sow dangerous fear and insidious suspicion without basis in fact in order to reinforce a militant and frankly fundamentalist gun-culture and use the same tools and tactics to promote unnecessary gun sales while blocking attempts at responsible and reasonable bipartisan gun regulation. The problem is not the greater membership of the association, unless you consider their money contributions to the NRA a problem, which I don't. The problem is the leadership of the organisation which refuses any compromise between much-needed individual rights and equally-needed regulation to reduce firearms abuse and injuries/death by legal but irresponsible gun-owners and those who possess firearms illegally.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[VanceMack]

I already read the 2nd Amendment. So again, can you defend it on its merits?

I feel no need to defend the 2nd any more than the 1st 4th or 7th. It is who we are as a people and has been since this country was formed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

Why walk into possible danger when you can call a cop and let him do it, while you defend your castle from inside?

Inside or outside why wouldn’t he defend his castle with a weapon uniquely suited for the job? Time and time again the AR 15 has proven its effectiveness as a home defense weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vox]

Why walk into possible danger when you can call a cop and let him do it, while you defend your castle from inside?

Because the cops don't come to a report of "sensors going off."

LOL!

If you think cops can reliably get there in time when guns start going off you're living in a dream world.

 

[Kal'Stang]

yes - when compared to over 300 million non members - it is indeed tiny.

And 300 million is a teeny tiny minority compared to 7 billion. :shrug: You could add any number to make it sound like an insignificant amount. But in the end 5 million is nothing to sneeze at. And that is just those that are official members. There are many MANY more that support them ideologically.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Actually it is based on the historical record of the organization since the infamous Cincinattit Revolt in which radicals hijacked the organization for their own extremist puppies.

I would strongly urge you to read Waldman's excellent book THE SECOND AMENDMENT" A BIOGRAPHY. It painstakingly chronicles the event step by step over the years and is something that cannot be denied once he lays it out for all to see.

In other words they became extremists the moment that they started to defend the 2nd Amendment. :roll:

 

[Casper]

Why walk into possible danger when you can call a cop and let him do it, while you defend your castle from inside?

Because it takes them on average 20 minutes to show up, and my property has 2 homes, a shop, shed and 2 barns filled with boats and valuable machinery and tools, not to mention that when the sensors are activated it can be for several reasons and one cannot be bugging the sheriff for every little thing. No, I go check it out, armed, and if I did see someone yes I would call 911, but I would also protect my property meaning that I would confront them, what happens next would be totally up to them, wait for the sheriff to show, or go home in a bag, that is the risk one takes when breaking into other peoples property. It could be worse, I could just let my three dogs go look, the last coyote they caught ended up in several pieces, and only one dog got a small nip, would you prefer I do that to a human intruder?

 

[Casper]

Inside or outside why wouldn’t he defend his castle with a weapon uniquely suited for the job? Time and time again the AR 15 has proven its effectiveness as a home defense weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hence why I have several and when it comes to late night walk-abouts one is always with me and locked and loaded, as they should be.

 

[Cardinal]

I feel no need to defend the 2nd any more than the 1st 4th or 7th. It is who we are as a people and has been since this country was formed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then no, you are unable to defend the 2nd Amendment on its merits. Which means that any time you invoke it you are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Don't feel bad. Nobody else I've asked this question of has been able to defend the 2nd Amendment on its merits either.

 

[VanceMack]

Then no, you are unable to defend the 2nd Amendment on its merits. Which means that any time you invoke it you are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Don't feel bad. Nobody else I've asked this question of has been able to defend the 2nd Amendment on its merits either.

:lamo

No...what this means is no one is going to play your stupid game. I don’t need to defend the 2A. I don’t need to defend the 1A. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of citizens over the government. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

:lamo

No...what this means is no one is going to play your stupid game. I don’t need to defend the 2A.

No, you're unable to. It's an important distinction.

I don’t need to defend the 1A.

But you could if you wanted to. I believe most of us could make a decent defense of it.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of citizens over the government. Period.

That's just simply moving the appeal to authority fallacy further up the ladder. "The 2nd Amendment is good because it's good, and it's good because it's in the Bill of Rights. And I can prove that the Bill of Rights is good because it contains the 2nd Amendment." So on top of appeal to authority you've also got a giant problem of making a circular reasoning argument.

 

[VanceMack]

No, you're unable to. It's an important distinction.



But you could if you wanted to. I believe most of us could make a decent defense of it.



That's just simply moving the appeal to authority fallacy further up the ladder. "The 2nd Amendment is good because it's good, and it's good because it's in the Bill of Rights. And I can prove that the Bill of Rights is good because it contains the 2nd Amendment." So on top of appeal to authority you've also got a giant problem of making a circular reasoning argument.

I’ve got no problems and I have no NEED to defend it. I’ve got this awesome document called the Constitution and I woke up this morning covered under its umbrella by the grace of Almighty God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk