Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The NRA Liberals In Action

You seem to be an expert at creating statements that don't exist.

Go crawl under a rock. What does this have to do with the discussion? You sound like just another troll. Go argue with someone that cares about nonsense.

It has a lot to do with this discussion because the NRA that you support also supports throwing anyone that violates the US vs. import parts count rule in to federal prison. Do you also support that? And do you support police officers owning the very same machine guns you are so terrified of?

What statement are you speaking of? I quoted you automatically with the "Quote" feature here and then put emphasis on the word I was talking about. I then credited myself with the emphasis. Where did I create a statement?

I don't know about the Nevada event, but.......the NRA want's Max Baucus in the Senate, not because he's pro gun (he's not), but because they have access to him and he's a high ranking committee member.

Max is a POS. If the NRA thinks he's a good guy, they have an entirely different rating system than I do.

IIRC the legal machine gun used in a crime was by an off-duty police officer with an issued weapon.

Yeah, like that damn-fool Kerry when he was tryin' to show how 'pro-gun' he was when runnin' against GW.. They just try to show up for photo ops they can use for a campaign..

Only if we can. I think someone had a idea at one time called equal protection under the law. It was meant to protect us peons.

Because it places restrictions on our rights, and gives a roadmap of who owns what and where they may be located.



If a terrorist wanted a full auto, I'm very sure that he would either be able to find one from his handler here, or bring his own. If the cartels can bring over tons of coke, it is ludicrous to believe that the Tangoes can't bring in explosives and full auto weapons. As an example I give you Mumbai. The Indians have some of the most restrictive gun control in the world, but it didn't prevent what you describe from happening. I will give you Israel and Switzerland as examples where everyone has full auto weapons, and their citizens seem to be trusted enough by their governments to do so. Why not us? Are we less trustworthy, or are we potential "kooks"?

If you substitute "assault weapon" for "machine gun" in your statement, it sounds remarkably like the arguments used by the people who succeeded in banning assault weapons for 10 years.



I have done all of the above, and both my wife and I are Life Members of the NRA, but I have to say that they have compromised too much in the past, and seem to be willing to do so in the future in order to make a deal. A harder line would go a long ways to restoring credibility with some of us, rather than a line in the sand which seems to shift depending upon the political calculus of the week.



Then get the message to them that quite a few of us are fed up with compromise, and believe that they should work harder at eliminating such things as the inability to purchase a firearm wherever we find one, without restriction as to type, and the ability to bear arms nationwide without fear of prosecution. After all, that is pretty much what the Second Amendment is all about.

Flower Child, why are you so hung up on the "At his Side" part of the article? Are you that naive to think the AP of all people wouldn't make that statement. It makes Reid look like one of us and Lapeire look like he supports Reid. You would think people would be more aware of how the MSM works, but apparently not. Mountain out of a mole hill. Your beef with the NRA doesn't hold water in this particular instance. Think man.



Clyde

Like all organizations the NRA is not perfect and to expect the NRA to be perfect is to deny the possible in hopes of achieving the perfect. Be thankful we have the NRA, without them we would be discussing the relative merits of the various brands of slingshots.

As a Benefactor member I vote in all elections and support the NRA by buying a table and donating merchandise at the annual dinners.

Congratulations on being a Life Member of NRA. Israel & Switzerland are excellent examples where keeping fully auto weapons in the home works & is readily available for defense of their country. I believe if statistics are checked that unfortunately Americans commit more crimes than most developed nations. Drugs, organized crime, & those with mental issues are a big part of those statistics. Few countries have the approach that our country does in releasing mental patients & being politically correct in requiring individuals to seek professional help or be incarcerated. One has to only look at the Virginia Tech. tragedy to see an example of this. Suppose this nut had had a fully auto gun. If one looks at the vast number of mass murders in the US in past years I can only shutter at what could have happened if fully auto guns were used. Certainly criminals could import illegally machine guns, but most would agree that allowing unregulated sale of machine guns could & would result in many be used in street crimes & ever more mass murders. I would suggest that those that feel no compromise is the way to go on gun issues find a venue that supports that opinion. Write your representatives & state that there is to be no restriction of any form on any gun manufactured including machine guns & why not include grenades as well. Grenades should work well on PD's so why not legalize. Also state that you don't care what non gun owners believe & if they decide to vote even more regulations you damn well didn't compromise even one little bit. Some seem to feel that their opinion is the only opinion & if you disagree FU or some such insult. At any rate everyone is entitled to their opinion & I respect that. Support pro gun regulations any way you choose.

I realize that everyone has their own opinion as to what my rights are, but I'm tired of being the one having to abridge those rights to satisfy someone else's opinion on what they entail.

My point is that the same arguments that you use sound eerily like the ones the anti gun crowd used to restrict assault weapons, or are using to restrict carry laws.

The argument that we all must give up full auto weapons because a mental case may cause mayhem with one is specious on its face, as just as much mayhem can be caused by any semi auto. It is a matter of willingness to engage in the activity.

That you use this argument when it is the same one used to decry carry legislation is also of concern. How many times have we heard from the anti gun cadre that having unrestricted concealed carry will cause "wild west" type shootouts? Yet, amazingly, it hasn't happened. That you don't see that, or choose not to is why I have concerns over how the NRA does business.

Grenades? Where did that come in? But, as home made grenades in the form of pipe bombs are available to those who wish to make them, the same argument could be made against their restriction. Those who desire to use those types of weapons, will, regardless of the laws restricting them.

Bottom line is that restrictions to the Second Amendment based on what crimes MIGHT happen are the stock in trade of the anti gun lobby, and totally ignore the fact that anyone who chooses to cause mayhem and destruction will do so regardless of how many laws that there are restricting access to weapons that would make that easier. All those restrictions do is limit the citizens access to those same weapons that could be used as a counterforce against misuse.

Restricting the rights of the citizenry for a perception of future danger is wrong, and an organization that purports to support those rights but at the same time promotes restricting those rights as part of a politically expedient compromise needs to rethink its mandate. YMMV.

Never - NEVER - NEVER interpret any news article litrely. Writers use words to INFLUENCE peoples emotions. In this case it worked, drawing FC in hook line and sinker, landing him on 2 pound test as we used to say.

Gun Owners of America, and that's all I have to say about THAT.

Very well said

Oulufinn,
No smokescreen. I do have a problem with the two of them being together anywhere at anytime for any "reason". Heaven only knows what was said and we can only HOPE that they failed to hatch out some mutually beneficial nefarious plot.
Also, I AM TIRED OF VOTING IN THE SAME OL' ELECTIONS supervised by NRA management. Why would anybody put foxes to guard the hen house and then trust them to divide up the shares of the eggs produced by the chickens? Give me a break fella. Do I look to you like I just fell off of the turnip truck?
Finally, if my attempts at sending up some smoke signals to the rest of the board are so feeble, then why are you trying so hard to put out my fire? Huh? If you think the BOD is in the bag, just hold my beer and watch this! It ain't never over when a skunk like LaPierre is selling us all out.

Flower Child

The NRA should meet with these people and explain to them how their philosophy is incorrect and try to convert them.

The citizens of the US need all political parties in favor of the second amendment. For that to happen opposers need to be consulted,they were brought up to oppose and need converted.

All need to look past party affiliation. Our objective as gun owners is not to make Republicans beat Democrats, but to have pro-gun polititions beat anti-gun polititions.

It would be great to not have the second amendment as an issue.

I think that the meeting was a positive happening. It may not have went well and maybe Reid got fu'ed, but I like to see this type of effort.

Well. I'll be on the lookout for the "mutually beneficial nefarious plot". I'll note your tiredness of "VOTING IN THE SAME OL' ELECTIONS" & do it for you. You will need to hold your own beer, though watching you is proving to be decent entertainment.

A few million more voting members (Still a fraction of overall gun owners) would likely accomplish more things (AND fix some of the legitimate problems many have with the NRA), quicker, for now we'll have to do it with less.

Next time you have any service performed for you, be it vehicle/home repair, having a meal fixed at a restaurant or what ever, be sure to inform them that you do not expect perfection and see what happens.

What exactly do you think a person can do with a full auto that cannot be done with a semi-auto? And your ducking the question about the 1989 semi-auto ban has me wondering about your agenda, especially considering your anti-machine gun arguments sound exactly like anti-semi-auto arguments.