What if 100 NRA members were killed?[W:1249]

[jaeger19]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

The term GUN BANNER, as used by some here, is to imply that a person does not want people to have guns. It is used overly broadly and thus dishonestly.

My position is no different that conservative icon President Ronald Reagan who advocated the same thing I do.

A gun banner.. as used by everyone here.. is someone that wants to ban firearms. hence.. "gun BANNER".

You sir wish to ban guns.. you admit it.. you posted it. The fact that you might believe that on the third day of the month,, during an eclipse of the sun, I might be allowed to own a .22 single shot pistol with biometric handles and trigger does not in any way detract from the fact that you want to ban guns.

And I don't give a Crap what Reagan did or did not do. He was wrong on a number of positions..

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

A gun banner.. as used by everyone here.. is someone that wants to ban firearms. hence.. "gun BANNER".

You sir wish to ban guns.. you admit it.. you posted it. The fact that you might believe that on the third day of the month,, during an eclipse of the sun, I might be allowed to own a .22 single shot pistol with biometric handles and trigger does not in any way detract from the fact that you want to ban guns.

And I don't give a Crap what Reagan did or did not do. He was wrong on a number of positions..

yup - me and conservative icon Ronald Reagan. That shows how inanely STUPID your GUN BANNER label is.

I said I want to ban automatic weapons. You don;t like that? Tough. Extremists can live with that disappointment.

If intellectual integrity si something you care about - the more accurate term would be AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BANNER.

But then that would not achieve the irresponsible slur you and the NRA crowd are trying to push in identifying an enemy who must be crushed all costs - including the truth.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

I suspect the real reason was they did not want to pay for a standing army and that was the prime motivation.
.

BWAHHH.. are you serious. no wait.. you are...

No it was not about paying for a standing army.. it was the fear that a standing army could be corrupted by being more beholding to the government than to the populace.

The Founders did not trust the people to elect a president.

\

Yes they did. They simply feared the Tyranny of the Majority. Which can occur in a purely democratic form of election.

The Founders dis nto trust the people to elect their senators.

Yes they did. Simply not directly.. but through their election of state legislators.

What makes you think the Founders would trust the people with arms that could not be controlled by the government that they thought they themselves would be in control of?

yeah.. you will have to rephrase that I can't understand what you are asking.

However let me as you this. If the founders did not trust people with arms.. why in the militia act did they state that INDIVIDUALS should procure:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack" Militia Act of 1792

Please note.. it does not say.. that the state should provide.. or that the federal government will provide.. it states each citizen so enrolled shall provide himself.

that's individuals having firearms. not states or federal government.

Perhaps some. But clearly that is NOT what the Second Amendment says

Its clearly what it says within the context of the bill of rights and the constitution and history.

You only have rights that the government accepts as rights - no matter what is listed or not listed. That is just the way the real world works.

Not true.. we have been over this. If such was the case.. then rights can never be violated.

The Second was in there to provide for a national defense mechanism without the expense of a standing army --- or the threat of one either.

Half right.. without the threat of a standing army. The threat to liberty of a government controlled army over an unarmed populace.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

yup - me and conservative icon Ronald Reagan. That shows how inanely STUPID your GUN BANNER label is.

I said I want to ban automatic weapons. You don;t like that? Tough. Extremists can live with that disappointment.

If intellectual integrity si something you care about - the more accurate term would be AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BANNER.

But then that would not achieve the irresponsible slur you and the NRA crowd are trying to push in identifying an enemy who must be crushed all costs - including the truth.

Yeah.. no. first.. not me..

Second.. Because Ronald Reagan agreed with you (if he did.. I don't know he was before my time and his stance on firearms doesn;t mean diddly to me or anyone else) has no validity.

third.. still makes you a gun banner. Whether you want to be called an Automatic weapons gun banner.. or a gun banner.. or whatever.. you are still a gun banner.

no matter what rationalization you try to use to make yourself to appear less extreme....

Don't like it? tough. give me any any rational explanation why we need to ban automatic weapons. Please explain why my friends that have had automatic weapons for decades.. safely.. with no problem.. must.. because you think so.. turn over their property.

Please give me a logical rationale why they need to give up their property.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Apparently I provide an answer any you pretend that it is not my answer. Again, I would decide on each initiative based on its own merits. What a legislative body can do is one thing, what I would support is not always the same thing. Accepting a body has the power to do something is not always an endorsement of everything they may decide to do with that power. So your statement about me agreeing with anything passed is flat out incorrect.

I have no idea what your point is in your mind reading paragraph.
If laws are unconstitutional, then the Court will state that.

Your personal views of how I debate may mean something to you but I debate exactly as I was trained to do in college when I was on the debate team for two year and competed around the nation asthma of the finest universities in the land against some of the finest universities.

I realize the main thing I do is insist that when somebody tells me what my position is, I insist they present that position in my own words. This angers people and they expect me do the their work for them.

I WILL NOT DO SO.

If you tell me what my position is, it is incumbent upon you to prove it without my help if I so chose it. I do not and will not apologize for that.

If by will no do so, you mean state a clear position you have to defend, don't worry, we all know.

Your later definition actually is in contravention to established SCOTUS rulings and many are simply unconstitutional. But hey, why be honest, its never stopped you before.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Yeah.. no. first.. not me..

Second.. Because Ronald Reagan agreed with you (if he did.. I don't know he was before my time and his stance on firearms doesn;t mean diddly to me or anyone else) has no validity.

third.. still makes you a gun banner. Whether you want to be called an Automatic weapons gun banner.. or a gun banner.. or whatever.. you are still a gun banner.

no matter what rationalization you try to use to make yourself to appear less extreme....

Don't like it? tough. give me any any rational explanation why we need to ban automatic weapons. Please explain why my friends that have had automatic weapons for decades.. safely.. with no problem.. must.. because you think so.. turn over their property.

Please give me a logical rationale why they need to give up their property.

You too are a gun banner if you want ANY person banned from guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

You too are a gun banner if you want ANY person banned from guns.

see you are lying again

you have denied being a gun banner to the point of lying about others when they claim you are

but using your own definition, you are a gn banner because you have spent hours upon hours demanding that private sales be subjected to a background check so felons cannot buy guns from unsuspecting sellers.

so you call anyone who thinks say even felons doing LWOP should not be able to own guns but you deny being a gun banner even though you want all felons banned from owning guns

see how blatantly hypocritical and dishonest your argument is?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

see you are lying again

you have denied being a gun banner to the point of lying about others when they claim you are

but using your own definition, you are a gn banner because you have spent hours upon hours demanding that private sales be subjected to a background check so felons cannot buy guns from unsuspecting sellers.

so you call anyone who thinks say even felons doing LWOP should not be able to own guns but you deny being a gun banner even though you want all felons banned from owning guns

see how blatantly hypocritical and dishonest your argument is?

By your own definition you are a gun banner and have been outed a long time ago. I will remind you every single time if necessary

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

By your own definition you are a gun banner and have been outed a long time ago. I will remind you every single time if necessary

you are lying again. You are a gun banner using YOUR definition

My definition of a gun banner is someone who wants to restrict or limit honest people in terms of what guns they can own-that makes you a gun banner under my definition but not me or Rucker or other pro gun posters

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

you are lying again. You are a gun banner using YOUR definition

My definition of a gun banner is someone who wants to restrict or limit honest people in terms of what guns they can own-that makes you a gun banner under my definition but not me or Rucker or other pro gun posters

You are a gun banner by everyone's definition because you want to ban guns by race. I am not a gun banner by any definition

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

You are a gun banner by everyone's definition because you want to ban guns by race. I am not a gun banner by any definition

you're lying again. you cannot find a single post of mine that supports that claim. but we have plenty of posts of yours that demonstrate you are a gun banner by your own definition, and you are a gun banner by my definition as well as most of the other pro gun posters

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

you're lying again. you cannot find a single post of mine that supports that claim. but we have plenty of posts of yours that demonstrate you are a gun banner by your own definition, and you are a gun banner by my definition as well as most of the other pro gun posters

Why do you continue to lie? You can not find a single post where I have supported a gun ban. Just show us already....you can't so you lie. But your gun banning views are well known

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Why do you continue to lie? You can not find a single post where I have supported a gun ban. Just show us already....you can't so you lie. But your gun banning views are well known

stop lying. several other posters have called you a gun banner based on your praise and constantly gushing over gun banning countries' laws and gun banning states. plus, after the Vegas massacre, you were howling for more gun laws as noted in my signature

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

stop lying. several other posters have called you a gun banner based on your praise and constantly gushing over gun banning countries' laws and gun banning states. plus, after the Vegas massacre, you were howling for more gun laws as noted in my signature

We are off to the races again folks. Turtledude can not stay on topic on a thread because he is OBSESSED with me. Everything is about me. Pretty soon he is going to lose it as evidenced in my signature. The topic is what if 100 NRA members were killed....not me. LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

We are off to the races again folks. Turtledude can not stay on topic on a thread because he is OBSESSED with me. Everything is about me. Pretty soon he is going to lose it as evidenced in my signature. The topic is what if 100 NRA members were killed....not me. LOL

how many threads have you cluttered up with ITS JUST A FORM

oh and IT KEEPS US SAFE

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

how many threads have you cluttered up with ITS JUST A FORM

oh and IT KEEPS US SAFE

We are on this thread. Anytime you can contribute let us know. LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

We are on this thread. Anytime you can contribute let us know. LOL

Its just a form!!.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Sandy Hook proved we will do nothing about guns. As if we needed proof after all the previous incidents of murder and carnage. murders

The club in Florida proved it again when 49 were murdered.

And nothing will come of this Vegas slaughter today. Nothing. Not one damn thing will change.

The NRA owns Congress and the Republicans are there compliant bitch more than willing to do their bidding and ask for more.

So what would happen if some killer slaughtered 100 NRA members at one of their conventions?

Would that change anything?

Nope it would not change anything. The death toll will have to be much much much higher. And that is a tragedy.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

BWAHHH.. are you serious. no wait.. you are...

No it was not about paying for a standing army.. it was the fear that a standing army could be corrupted by being more beholding to the government than to the populace.

\

Yes they did. They simply feared the Tyranny of the Majority. Which can occur in a purely democratic form of election.

Yes they did. Simply not directly.. but through their election of state legislators.



yeah.. you will have to rephrase that I can't understand what you are asking.

However let me as you this. If the founders did not trust people with arms.. why in the militia act did they state that INDIVIDUALS should procure:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack" Militia Act of 1792

Please note.. it does not say.. that the state should provide.. or that the federal government will provide.. it states each citizen so enrolled shall provide himself.

that's individuals having firearms. not states or federal government.



Its clearly what it says within the context of the bill of rights and the constitution and history.



Not true.. we have been over this. If such was the case.. then rights can never be violated.



Half right.. without the threat of a standing army. The threat to liberty of a government controlled army over an unarmed populace.

Clearly, you seem to be one of the people who believe the hype. You read the fancy words ... you read the speeches .... you get caught up in the philosophy and verbiage that politicians use to justify their actions and you take that as the reality.

Do not listen to what people say. Watch what they do. For politicians, all that verbiage and fancy putting together of words is just talk which in most cases is no different than a horny 16 year old boy professing his undying love for a girl down by the lake to achieve his goal. Months later, the fancy words are forgotten and she is thinking about if the bunting should be pink or blue.

Here is reality - hard cold and no frill added to fool the naive or unsuspecting.

1 - unless the government of the nation you live in says you have a certain right, you do not have it and all the fancy words and beliefs and invoking higher powers will not change that.

2 - When the USA started out , we could not afford a standing army, nor did we want the threat of a permanent military force that could overthrow a fragile new government. So the militia was a terrific idea which solved both problems and we even made the citizen pay for it himself as an additional cost saving measure.

3- To make sure the government could control the militia, Article I, Section 8 gives the government broad and sweeping powers over the militia including over their arms.

4 - This phony baloney "tyranny of the majority" is a right wing boogey man used to disparage the will of the people. We have a Constitution with defined rights and processes to make sure there is no tyranny of the majority.

Do not focus on the words

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Yeah.. no. first.. not me..

Second.. Because Ronald Reagan agreed with you (if he did.. I don't know he was before my time and his stance on firearms doesn;t mean diddly to me or anyone else) has no validity.

third.. still makes you a gun banner. Whether you want to be called an Automatic weapons gun banner.. or a gun banner.. or whatever.. you are still a gun banner.

no matter what rationalization you try to use to make yourself to appear less extreme....

Don't like it? tough. give me any any rational explanation why we need to ban automatic weapons. Please explain why my friends that have had automatic weapons for decades.. safely.. with no problem.. must.. because you think so.. turn over their property.

Please give me a logical rationale why they need to give up their property.

The term GUN BANNER is something the right wing of the NRA uses to insult and disparage people who want to bar automatic weapons from our society as they believe such firepower belongs in the military and not in civilian hands. No civilian has any need for that sort of firepower. And that is the best rationalization you will ever hear or need.

Ronald Reagan believed that also and he was honored by the NRA.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

If by will no do so, you mean state a clear position you have to defend, don't worry, we all know.

Your later definition actually is in contravention to established SCOTUS rulings and many are simply unconstitutional. But hey, why be honest, its never stopped you before.

I could not help but notice you made broad statements about my views but you failed to provide any actual evidence to support your statements as to why I am wrong.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

I could not help but notice you made broad statements about my views but you failed to provide any actual evidence to support your statements as to why I am wrong.

You need evidence that the Supreme Court overturned gun legislation? Are you being serious?

You are wrong because you claim to know the intent of the legislators and executive branch people, and they don't even state intent honestly. So your statement is a self serving pile of poo.

 

[haymarket]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

You need evidence that the Supreme Court overturned gun legislation? Are you being serious?

You are wrong because you claim to know the intent of the legislators and executive branch people, and they don't even state intent honestly. So your statement is a self serving pile of poo.

Two different things. Just because the Court has ruled some provisions of other gun laws as unconstitutional does not automatically that the things I listed as supporting are unconstitutional. You have to be specific - and you were intentionally vague.

I have asked you nicely several times to can the personal insults and try to be civil. Why can't you do that?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Clearly, you seem to be one of the people who believe the hype. You read the fancy words ... you read the speeches .... you get caught up in the philosophy and verbiage that politicians use to justify their actions and you take that as the reality.

Do not listen to what people say. Watch what they do. For politicians, all that verbiage and fancy putting together of words is just talk which in most cases is no different than a horny 16 year old boy professing his undying love for a girl down by the lake to achieve his goal. Months later, the fancy words are forgotten and she is thinking about if the bunting should be pink or blue.

Here is reality - hard cold and no frill added to fool the naive or unsuspecting.

1 - unless the government of the nation you live in says you have a certain right, you do not have it and all the fancy words and beliefs and invoking higher powers will not change that.

2 - When the USA started out , we could not afford a standing army, nor did we want the threat of a permanent military force that could overthrow a fragile new government. So the militia was a terrific idea which solved both problems and we even made the citizen pay for it himself as an additional cost saving measure.

3- To make sure the government could control the militia, Article I, Section 8 gives the government broad and sweeping powers over the militia including over their arms.

4 - This phony baloney "tyranny of the majority" is a right wing boogey man used to disparage the will of the people. We have a Constitution with defined rights and processes to make sure there is no tyranny of the majority.

Do not focus on the words

1- False and any American government that openly declares that is looking for a second revolutionary war, thanks for declaring yourself an authoritarian tyrant, but we puzzled that one out.
2- The constitution has not been changed to the degree or affect of what you are stating, so its irrelevant, its sophistry for banning guns and disarming citizens.
3-

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If you believe that applies to private citizens, you are just wrong, and SCOTUS thinks you are wrong too.
4- According to everything I read here, you want power invested in the state and not the people, so why the **** would I listen to anyone as wrong headed and consumed by giving power to the state as you? You literally don't value your freedom AT ALL.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: What if 100 NRA members were killed?

Two different things. Just because the Court has ruled some provisions of other gun laws as unconstitutional does not automatically that the things I listed as supporting are unconstitutional. You have to be specific - and you were intentionally vague.

I have asked you nicely several times to can the personal insults and try to be civil. Why can't you do that?

That's why your statement is a self serving pile of poo, because it never has to be defended until it wont need to be because gun confiscation will be long under way. Your statement is regarding what people believe and it is irrelevant what they believe and what their intent is, if it is not within constitutional boundaries. Who gives a **** what lying, self serving politicians believe, or intend, they are always about power and apparently, so are you.