Nra,support for the second amendment!

[Beaudreaux]

I will tell you a neat trick with a slingshot (since I have been a competitive archer for decades I can shoot a slingshot pretty well and used to use one to knock wounded quail or pheasants out of trees when I was bird hunting (beats shooting them again with a shotgun and filling the meat up with #6 shot)

I used to always carry a slingshot when bow hunting for deer. I had some clay pellets. If things were slow I'd use the slingshot to zap field rats or woodchucks. but the slingshot had a better use. If I spotted some deer say 80-150 yards away that wouldn't come in to my stand I would take a clay pellet and stick it under my arm and get a good dose of man smell on it. Then I would shoot the ball past the deer (when the wind was right). The deer would smell human and move away from it-right towards me. in other cases, the sound of the pellet hitting in bushes or loose leaves would spook them my way. Zapped several good sized deer using that trick (that I learned from a guy who used to hang out in an archery shop near where I went to college)

Pretty cool. We did similar, but we mainly used them as a silent weapon. Less vulnerable to wind then arrows, and as I said, silent, especially compared to a firearm.

 

[blackjack50]

I think what we need to do is ban from holding office politicians like that

Won't they just kill anyone who suggests that?

 

[TurtleDude]

Won't they just kill anyone who suggests that?

maybe so which is why citizens need to be well armed. I think the thought that 20 million honest people might want to kill you if you become a tyrant is a pretty good restraint on would be napoleons

 

[ttwtt78640]

you are wrong. the second amendment is about federal intrusions-and while the McDonald decision expanded that, for over 200 years, it was assumed that states had the right to make laws concerning the keeping and bearing of arms consistent with their own STATE constitutions. Your rant about having to pay for a license has some merit but the fact is-

1) states have the power to ban people carrying concealed weapons as long as the state constitution allows that
2) CCW licenses would not have become so widespread if there were not a training requirement. I know that for a fact concerning Ohio.

That nonsense was settled in 1925, based largely on the 14th amenedment. There were folks that held that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't since the wording "Congress shall pass no law to..." was used in the 1st amendment, but the 2nd amandment clearly says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One does not stop being a US citizen or a person simply because they travel to or reside in Ohio.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (simple fact, not opinion) - Democratic Underground

 

[ttwtt78640]

you again don't understand the concept of federal vs state powers. you seem upset because you cannot afford or want to pay the license fee.

Even your Ohio constitution says "The people have a right to bear arms for their defense and security;..." I guess you have no right to keep arms in Ohio but you may carry them.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

 

[Bob N]

here was never a reason for the NRA to be political until the democrats-losing ground in the mid 60s because the democrats were seen as being soft on violent black street crime-adopted gun control to stave off Nixon and the GOPs attacks. The first goal of the Dems was to claim that they too wanted to stop street crime (without actually upsetting a major constituency-blacks). that caused the NRA to attack that strategy as being anti second amendment

I love the way you buttered that up. First and foremost, I answered the OP's question quite on the spot and now you come back with this illogical rhetoric; secondly, the Democrats didn't lose ground in the 60s because they were soft on violent crime (black); they actually lost what was known as the "solid south" because of the Civil Rights Act; it had nothing to do with violence or guns.

In the beginning the NRA was an excellent organization that taught and spoke of proper handling and shooting of a firearm and hunting. Many a day I can remember picking up a periodical that my father (at one time he was in the NRA.) would get and read about hunting. But in my opinion throughout the years the NRA has let the gun lobbyists and radicals take over the organization.

 

[TurtleDude]

I love the way you buttered that up. First and foremost, I answered the OP's question quite on the spot and now you come back with this illogical rhetoric; secondly, the Democrats didn't lose ground in the 60s because they were soft on violent crime (black); they actually lost what was known as the "solid south" because of the Civil Rights Act; it had nothing to do with violence or guns.

In the beginning the NRA was an excellent organization that taught and spoke of proper handling and shooting of a firearm and hunting. Many a day I can remember picking up a periodical that my father (at one time he was in the NRA.) would get and read about hunting. But in my opinion throughout the years the NRA has let the gun lobbyists and radicals take over the organization.

its funny that you whine about the NRA (for what reason other than they don't support the far left socialists you want in office) but you don't think the Democraps who try to ban stuff that people have been able to own freely for 100+ years is extreme.

if the Democraps had not targeted our rights so they could pretend they were doing something about crime (while coddling street criminals lest they lose the black vote), the NRA never would have had to be lobbying. If DEM judges hand't pissed on the second and tenth amendments, the scumbag DEMOCRAP politicians would never have been able to use gun control as a way to appease those who were afraid of black crime without upsetting black "civil rights" leaders.

 

[Bob N]

its funny that you whine about the NRA (for what reason other than they don't support the far left socialists you want in office) but you don't think the Democraps who try to ban stuff that people have been able to own freely for 100+ years is extreme.

if the Democraps had not targeted our rights so they could pretend they were doing something about crime (while coddling street criminals lest they lose the black vote), the NRA never would have had to be lobbying. If DEM judges hand't pissed on the second and tenth amendments, the scumbag DEMOCRAP politicians would never have been able to use gun control as a way to appease those who were afraid of black crime without upsetting black "civil rights" leaders.

TD: still the same rhetoric. Nothing about the Civil Rights Act and the "solid south?" Why am I not surprised. :roll:

Freely own for 100+ years? I didn't know that minutemen had access to guns that contained large numbers of bullets to them. I guess they should have dropped the flintlocks and grabbed up AK47s. :2razz:

 

[TurtleDude]

TD: still the same rhetoric. Nothing about the Civil Rights Act and the "solid south?" Why am I not surprised. :roll:

Freely own for 100+ years? I didn't know that minutemen had access to guns that contained large numbers of bullets to them. I guess they should have dropped the flintlocks and grabbed up AK47s. :2razz:

your understanding of history is pathetic. 100 years ago was just before the First world war. the colt 1911 pistol was patented two years before that. Semi automatic rifles were available. There were Luger pistols with drum magazines.

you think the minutemen were 100 years ago? No wonder your understanding of modern weaponry is rudimentary.

 

[Bob N]

your understanding of history is pathetic. 100 years ago was just before the First world war. the colt 1911 pistol was patented two years before that. Semi automatic rifles were available. There were Luger pistols with drum magazines.

you think the minutemen were 100 years ago? No wonder your understanding of modern weaponry is rudimentary.

There's nothing wrong with my understanding, TD. You did say 100+ (that's plus, OK?) years. If you didn't want me to go that far back be more exact.

 

[Goshin]

I dislike the NRA because they have compromised on the 2A far too often, and continue to do so. My preferred 2A org is Gun Owners of America.

However, yes I am currently a member of the NRA... mainly thanks to Nancy Pelosi.

 

[TurtleDude]

There's nothing wrong with my understanding, TD. You did say 100+ (that's plus, OK?) years. If you didn't want me to go that far back be more exact.

i guess you could not understand that semi automatic and automatic weapons have been available for more than one hundred years and were freely owned by American citizens for decades before the scum bag Democraps tried to limit our rights starting in 1934

 

[Bob N]

i guess you could not understand that semi automatic and automatic weapons have been available for more than one hundred years and were freely owned by American citizens for decades before the scum bag Democraps tried to limit our rights starting in 1934

I can understand only what you wrote and you wrote 100 + (That's plus! And more than 100 years.) :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

I can understand only what you wrote and you wrote 100 + (That's plus! And more than 100 years.) :roll:

you seriously couldn't understand that I was saying that the type of weapons the scumbag democrats want to ban have been available for 100+ years?

 

[Bob N]

you seriously couldn't understand that I was saying that the type of weapons the scumbag democrats want to ban have been available for 100+ years?

I understood everything you wrote, TD. And that's all anyone can possibly do. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

I understood everything you wrote, TD. And that's all anyone can possibly do. :shrug:

now your next task is to actually post something that is consistent with that supposed understanding

 

[oncewas]

No. At least according to their site.

Thanks Bob N.

 

[oncewas]

That depends on what you think the Second Amendment should cover. You see, In 1934, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act, which served to regulate and tax firearms that were considered used by gangsters at the time. They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which expanded on the system to license firearm dealers and prohibit criminals and those with mental impairments from owning firearms.

Thanks, Hamster Buddha!

 

[oncewas]

far more than the Democrats, liberals and progressives-the groups that have sponsored and provided the majority votes for ever disgusting anti second amendment federal legislation passed

Thanks, TurtleDude

 

[Bob N]

now your next task is to actually post something that is consistent with that supposed understanding

Either that or you keep up the supposed writing and I will try to decipher it. :2razz:

 

[MichaelJR]

Absolutely NOT.

They don't fight to kill FOPA or NFA (supposedly at the time of FOPA some high ranks had lots of $$ tied up in class III and made some serious dough, all speculation of course). They killed (actually massacred) constitutional carry in NH. '94 was relatively quiet on their front as well.

Until recently, NRA was more focused on "sportsmans rights", the good 'ol boys breaking out the O/U for skeet. Only recently, with the younger generation of gun owners being purists concerning 2A, have they changed their gameplan from blaze orange and deer, to fighting tyranny and protecting natural rights. Like any organization, they fight to stay relevant. Killing constitutional carry in NH was job security. With nothing to fight for in NH, NRA has no purpose in NH. On a business standpoint, it was genius. Same reason police don't want drug reform, it's job security. Most could give a f*** less what you do in your spare time behind closed doors, but they will gladly butt-in if it means OT and a few more guys in uniform.

I trust the NRA as far as I can throw them. They change more often and faster than New England weather. That being said, they are the big boys on the block, command HUGE amounts of $$, and as of late have been doing some serious damage for the good guys. I'll give them a nod while we are in this mess of an administration, but they better start going after the big junk on the books once this mook is out of office (let's just hope Christie doesn't get in, god knows we don't need anymore "reasonable" laws on the books)
Now, SAF, the GOAL groups....those guys fight the good fight 24/7/365.