”No Wonder The NRA Wasn’t Taking Questions” (17 posts)

|
  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    The NRA plan for school safety is an armed agent in every school. And the plan for movie theaters? For shopping malls? For churches, synagogues, and mosques? Bars and restaurants? Taken seriously, the NRA is calling for the TSA everywhere and forever.

    Sounds like the NRA hasn’t been introduced to the present GOP congress.

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    IT would have thwarted your new poster boy for gun control on Dec 14th.

    Maybe he just was THAT devoted to the Mayan calender theory.

    There is a local example in all this as well. The Kern High School District has their own police force, and has been carrying weapons on campus since the early 1980′s.

    No incidents of shootings since that date on any KHSD campus

    Don’t you just hate it when simple things like HONESTY get in the way of your attempt to return today’s citizenry back to peasants, subjects and serfs?

    What is your idea…MORE LAWS
    in case you haven’t noticed, criminals don’t pay attention to laws

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    So now it is a debate of more laws don’t make us safer versus more guns don’t make us safer.
    How about simply getting some kind of control over military-style weapons designed explicitly to kill people? As opposed to unristricted access? Why the paranoid reaction?
    No one is seeking to overturn or abolish the 2nd Amendment. No one is out to take away your right–not just a right but a “god given” right–to own a firearm; and how dare a bereaved mother suggest gun conrol and overruling god and taking the country down the road of dictatorial communism (or something). And making honest, freedom-loving citizens into serfs, yet.
    You can dig in your heels for your god given right to own a machine gun, but you’re giving up your god given right to be rational to do so.

  • Profile picture of drilnliftcrude drilnliftcrude said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    Arguing against machine gun ownership when nobody is arguing for it is not exactly rational.

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    The NRA is willing to discuss all factors relating to gun violence and murder sprees; misleading mass media, violent entertainment, video games, mental illness is all on the the table. Except guns.
    Apparently that’s a non-issue since guns don’t kill people, or something.

  • Profile picture of Groucho Groucho said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    If machine guns were legal to own, the NRA would be all for them. I think Cat just likes to say it to get a rise out of the nuts.

  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    I had assumed machine guns (like camel land) would be taken as a generic term. But it does seem to be taken literally and provoke a reaction I didn’t expect.

  • Profile picture of ApolloDawn ApolloDawn said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    Catpaw, one must never speak loosely or figuratively around partisans who are determined to do everything in their power to avoid rationally dealing with the subject. To do so just gives them that escape hatch. :(

    So, to bolt that door, I will point out that there in fact are gun organizations that see a God-given right for civilian possession and use of fully automatic machine guns.

    Culled from the first link: “Four tenets were established. First, a ruler who commands anything contrary God’s law forfeits his realm. Second, rebellion is refusal to obey God. To obey the ruler who commands contrary to God’s law is the real rebellion. Third, since God’s law is the fundamental law and only true source of law, neither king nor subject is exempt from it; war is sometimes required in order to defend God’s law against the ruler.”

    Chilling.

  • Profile picture of Deleted User said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    “So, to bolt that door, I will point out that there in fact are gun organizations that see a God-given right for civilian possession and use of fully automatic machine guns.


    Yes but they are in the minority and always have been and the NRA has never advocated for legalization of MG’s and has always supported the NFA of 1934.

    To constanley refer to MG’s in gun control debates is disingenuious at least and designed to incite the uninformed at the worst.

  • Profile picture of Lamonster Lamonster said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    At the risk of opposing a great mind, some of those tenets are reminiscent of the justifications for the American Revolution. :-)

  • Profile picture of ApolloDawn ApolloDawn said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    “Yes but they are in the minority and always have been and the NRA has never advocated for legalization of MG’s and has always supported the NFA of 1934.”

    Quite correct, for the record.

  • Profile picture of ApolloDawn ApolloDawn said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    “At the risk of opposing a great mind, some of those tenets are reminiscent of the justifications for the American Revolution.”

    Not in the sense that “God-given” comes with a direct and non-severable connection to one specific religion or theological branch.

    Claims to natural law span the range from sectarian theistic, to deistic, to pantheistic, to non-theistic.

  • Profile picture of Groucho Groucho said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    “designed to incite the uninformed at the worst”
    Seems to be working.

  • Profile picture of sagefever sagefever said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    IT did not stop Columbine. Two armed guards could not stop that massacre.
    ” war is sometimes required in order to defend God’s law against the ruler.”
    Omnipotence needs your bullets??
    The ineffable plan is apparently “effable”, as it were.
    Scary ….

  • Profile picture of Lamonster Lamonster said 1 year, 7 months ago:

    “Not in the sense that “God-given” comes with a direct and non-severable connection to one specific religion or theological branch.”

    True AD, and I would no more tie our God-given, natural rights to a specific religion than the founders did. These unalienable rights are as valid to the atheist as to the religious. My thought was that after listing in the Declaration of Independence a few of our unalienable rights (and he does attribute the source of these rights as being an endowment from a “Creator”) and then addressing how those rights had been grievously trampled by King George, Jefferson goes on to claim that, “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” If that is the standard then I don’t think some of those tenets are too far off the mark.