For those of you who believe in the 2nd amendment

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Here is the NRA page showing which politicians support your right to bear arms. :usa: :usa: :usa:

 

 

https://www.nrapvf.org/

 

 

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,297]

I believe in the Second Amendment.

 

I also believe it is not absolute, just like most amendments/rights.

 

Guess that makes me a commie gun-hater, huh?

[drobeski 3,061]

I believe in the Second Amendment.

 

I also believe it is not absolute, just like most amendments/rights.

 

Guess that makes me a commie gun-hater, huh?

nobody cares what you and your pickle smoochin buddies think.

 

HTH

 

Good post NV

[MDC 5,875]

Thanks for the post, I will be sure to vote against all of the NRA's recommended politicians.

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Thanks for the post, I will be sure to vote against all of the NRA's recommended politicians.

Go for it. They suport several dummycrats so make sure you vote against them also.

[MDC 5,875]

Go for it. They suport several dummycrats so make sure you vote against them also.

Will do. I vote against all gun nuts regardless of party affiliation.

[Baker Boy 1,477]

The average response time for a 911 call is 20 minutes.

End of discussion.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Is that the one that says you will not covet thy neighbor's wife?

[Frank M 181]

https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20141020/nra-pvf-endorses-larry-hogan-for-governor-in-general-election-on-november-4

 

This guy may support gun rights, but he has a look that would make me scared to have my kids around him.

 

Just sayin'.

[edjr 5,547]

Have you ever been to the beach?

 

everyone reserves their right to bare arms

[KSB2424 3,082]

I believe in the right to bear arms. I just don't believe in the right for the public to bear all arms every made.

 

I fully support the public being able to purchase any firearm that is needed for hunting, self defense, home protection, etc. I do not support the public being able to purchase anything "more" such as certain high powered rifles, automatic weapons, on up the chain.

 

So you to extreme sides keep pulling at one another while the flag stays somewhere in the middle, about where it is now.

[porkbutt 860]

Will do. I vote against all gun nuts regardless of party affiliation.

are you against me having a hunting rifle?

[MDC 5,875]

are you against me having a hunting rifle?

No, anything that makes your suicide / accidental homicide more likely is OK in my book.

[IGotWorms 3,297]

I believe in the right to bear arms. I just don't believe in the right for the public to bear all arms every made.

 

I fully support the public being able to purchase any firearm that is needed for hunting, self defense, home protection, etc. I do not support the public being able to purchase anything "more" such as certain high powered rifles, automatic weapons, on up the chain.

 

So you to extreme sides keep pulling at one another while the flag stays somewhere in the middle, about where it is now.

That line of thinking puts you on the far left as far as the NRA set is concerned. I mention this because you seem to think "the flag is in the middle" whereas it's actually pretty far to the right.

[5-Points 2,715]

So you to extreme sides keep pulling at one another while the flag stays somewhere in the middle, about where it is now.

That's about it in a nutshell right there. Gun rights supporters pretty much have to bring an equal but opposite zeal than the anti gun nuts bring if we just want to maintain the status quo. It's too bad they aren't content to just exercise their right to not buy a gun and leave everybody else's rights alone.

[Baker Boy 1,477]

Another shooting in a gun free zone.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/washington-school-shooting/index.html

[KSB2424 3,082]

That's about it in a nutshell right there. Gun rights supporters pretty much have to bring an equal but opposite zeal than the anti gun nuts bring if we just want to maintain the status quo.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement. If the left would simply say: Okay we draw the line here <> then I think the right would back off and say "okay" fine. But the far left (no guns at all) keeps whittling away so the far right has to come with just as much vigor.

 

Having background checks is common sense. Not allowing the general public access to tanks, grenades on down to automatic weapons is common sense to me too. Duh.

 

I can understand the debate on EXACTLY where to draw the line, and all that is fine. Personally I see no reason why the majority of the public NEEDS an asault rifle or some high powered semi auto whatthefockever to either hunt, self defense or protect their home but as long as we are debating where to draw the line somewhere in the middle I really don't care.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

That's about it in a nutshell right there. Gun rights supporters pretty much have to bring an equal but opposite zeal than the anti gun nuts bring if we just want to maintain the status quo. It's too bad they aren't content to just exercise their right to not buy a gun and leave everybody else's rights alone.

 

Considering in the last 35 years, you've gotten the nation and the supreme court to believe in an individual right to own a gun, a right that NEVER EXISTED nor exists in the constitution(a well regulated miltia, means WELL REGULATED MILITIA---how Madison and those signing it interpreted it as documented by their own letters and journals), I'd say you you guys have done pretty well.

[MDC 5,875]

I was curious about how many people would support an outright ban on firearms other than law enforcement. I figure that is a WAY outside the mainstream opinion and would've guessed < 5% of the public - I am stunned to see over 25% of respondents to Gallup call for a ban. That is just nuts to me.

[5-Points 2,715]

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement. If the left would simply say: Okay we draw the line here <> then I think the right would back off and say "okay" fine. But the far left (no guns at all) keeps whittling away so the far right has to come with just as much vigor.

 

Having background checks is common sense. Not allowing the general public access to tanks, grenades on down to automatic weapons is common sense to me too. Duh.

 

I can understand the debate on EXACTLY where to draw the line, and all that is fine. Personally I see no reason why the majority of the public NEEDS an asault rifle or some high powered semi auto whatthefockever to either hunt, self defense or protect their home but as long as we are debating where to draw the line somewhere in the middle I really don't care.

I agree to an extent. I don't necessarily have a problem with background checks so long as the criteria for denying someone are spelled out clearly, are not open to interpretation and do not change. However, if someone passes the background check I don't see a need to limit the types of firearms he/she should be able to own. Either they are sane and stable and we trust them with a gun, any gun, or they aren't and we don't.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Considering in the last 35 years, you've gotten the nation and the supreme court to believe in an individual right to own a gun, a right that NEVER EXISTED nor exists in the constitution(a well regulated miltia, means WELL REGULATED MILITIA---how Madison and those signing it interpreted it as documented by their own letters and journals), I'd say you you guys have done pretty well.

look up the definition of a comma dumbo

[5-Points 2,715]

 

Considering in the last 35 years, you've gotten the nation and the supreme court to believe in an individual right to own a gun, a right that NEVER EXISTED nor exists in the constitution(a well regulated miltia, means WELL REGULATED MILITIA---how Madison and those signing it interpreted it as documented by their own letters and journals), I'd say you you guys have done pretty well.

A well regulated militia is a militia that drills regularly so that they function properly as a unit.

 

Nowadays I think they're referred to as home grown terrorists.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

Does the NRA and it's supporters support the right of a convicted violent felon to own firearms? I

[Baker Boy 1,477]

Does the NRA and it's supporters support the right of a convicted violent felon to own firearms? I

If you aren't fishing you are a fool.

[drobeski 3,061]

Ted Nugent - 2nd Amendment Rights:

[IGotWorms 3,297]

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement. If the left would simply say: Okay we draw the line here <> then I think the right would back off and say "okay" fine. But the far left (no guns at all) keeps whittling away so the far right has to come with just as much vigor.

 

Having background checks is common sense. Not allowing the general public access to tanks, grenades on down to automatic weapons is common sense to me too. Duh.

 

I can understand the debate on EXACTLY where to draw the line, and all that is fine. Personally I see no reason why the majority of the public NEEDS an asault rifle or some high powered semi auto whatthefockever to either hunt, self defense or protect their home but as long as we are debating where to draw the line somewhere in the middle I really don't care.

Again, these statements put you on the far left so far as the gun lobby is concerned. Your lack of awareness on this point is alarming

[Baker Boy 1,477]

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement. If the left would simply say: Okay we draw the line here <> then I think the right would back off and say "okay" fine. But the far left (no guns at all) keeps whittling away so the far right has to come with just as much vigor.

 

Having background checks is common sense. Not allowing the general public access to tanks, grenades on down to automatic weapons is common sense to me too. Duh.

 

I can understand the debate on EXACTLY where to draw the line, and all that is fine. Personally I see no reason why the majority of the public NEEDS an asault rifle or some high powered semi auto whatthefockever to either hunt, self defense or protect their home but as long as we are debating where to draw the line somewhere in the middle I really don't care.

The line has already been draw with automatic weapons. Talking about drawing another line is only one more step toward eliminating all guns for law abiding citizens. The criminals will always have them.

 

If you are looking for a risk free society look at North Korea.

 

The line has been drawn and it stop there.

[BudBro 116]

 

Considering in the last 35 years, you've gotten the nation and the supreme court to believe in an individual right to own a gun, a right that NEVER EXISTED nor exists in the constitution(a well regulated miltia, means WELL REGULATED MILITIA---how Madison and those signing it interpreted it as documented by their own letters and journals), I'd say you you guys have done pretty well.

 

if you were needed in this "well regulated militia" on monday because of isis, from whom would you expect the guns to be provided? should those weapons be equal to the task of a militia, or would you be ok sporting your grandpa's .22?

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

Ok, I was fishing. My point is that if the contention of the NRA and it's followers is a costitutional right for we the people to own guns, then where in that constitution does it say convicted felons, mentally handicapped ect can't own a weapon? It seems to me if we are to follow the letter of the law, or amendment,as the NRA states, everyone should have the right to own a firearm. Everyone.

[5-Points 2,715]

Ok, I was fishing. My point is that if the contention of the NRA and it's followers is a costitutional right for we the people to own guns, then where in that constitution does it say convicted felons, mentally handicapped ect can't own a weapon? It seems to me if we are to follow the letter of the law, or amendment,as the NRA states, everyone should have the right to own a firearm. Everyone.

The NRA promotes safe, responsible gun ownership. If you've proven yourself incapable of such, the NRA is not going to go to bat for you. It's in our best interest as gun owners to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them illegally or irresponsibly. We don't want you fockin it up for the rest of us.

[MDC 5,875]

Ok, I was fishing. My point is that if the contention of the NRA and it's followers is a costitutional right for we the people to own guns, then where in that constitution does it say convicted felons, mentally handicapped ect can't own a weapon? It seems to me if we are to follow the letter of the law, or amendment,as the NRA states, everyone should have the right to own a firearm. Everyone.

The NRA actually has fought to help felons get their gun rights reinstated.

[5-Points 2,715]

The NRA actually has fought to help felons get their gun rights reinstated.

Violent felons? That's news to me. I'd be interested in learning more. Got a link handy?

[MDC 5,875]

Violent felons? That's news to me. I'd be interested in learning more. Got a link handy?

The NRA has lobbied to let states decide whether to reinstate fellons, contrary to federal law that had automatically barred them from owning firearms. As a result thousands of fellons do legally own guns. I can't say for sure what % are violent fellons but I'd imagine at least some are:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all

[Voltaire 4,552]

I believe in the right to bear arms. I just don't believe in the right for the public to bear all arms every made.

 

I fully support the public being able to purchase any firearm that is needed for hunting, self defense, home protection, etc. I do not support the public being able to purchase anything "more" such as certain high powered rifles, automatic weapons, on up the chain.

 

So you to extreme sides keep pulling at one another while the flag stays somewhere in the middle, about where it is now.

Thank You KSB.

 

Since the NRA opposes background checks to weed out criminals and psychiatric problems and also supports access to dangerous automatic weapons that have no purpose outside of a war zone, take any endorsement by them with a grain of salt.

[Voltaire 4,552]

The NRA promotes safe, responsible gun ownership. If you've proven yourself incapable of such, the NRA is not going to go to bat for you. It's in our best interest as gun owners to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them illegally or irresponsibly. We don't want you fockin it up for the rest of us.

NRA going to bat for non-responsible gun owners: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/15/cpac-lapierre-nra-bacground-checks-guns/1990457/

 

You sound reasonable here, the NRA disagrees with you. Maybe folks like you should quit and start your own organization.

[GobbleDog 815]

If the only people who ever got killed or hurt by guns were gun right advocates, I wouldn't care so much. They indirectly did it to themselves.

 

Unfortunately, innocent people get killed too.

[5-Points 2,715]

The NRA has lobbied to let states decide whether to reinstate fellons, contrary to federal law that had automatically barred them from owning firearms. As a result thousands of fellons do legally own guns. I can't say for sure what % are violent fellons but I'd imagine at least some are:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all

Wow!

 

 

"Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found."

 

 

Restoring gun rights to convicted violent felons is just plain stupid. I'm sure that was not the NRA's intent. As far as I know the only issue the NRA has with laws prohibiting bad guys from having guns is the bad guys don't pay attention to them.

 

Thanks for the read.

[MDC 5,875]

Wow!

 

 

"Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found."

 

 

Restoring gun rights to convicted violent felons is just plain stupid. I'm sure that was not the NRA's intent. As far as I know the only issue the NRA has with laws prohibiting bad guys from having guns is the bad guys don't pay attention to them.

 

Thanks for the read.

No problem. And I don't think putting guns in the hands of violent criminals is their goal either but I think the NRA's reflexive commitment to gun rights sometimes has that consequence and that they're out of step with mainstream gun owners.

[5-Points 2,715]

NRA going to bat for non-responsible gun owners: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/15/cpac-lapierre-nra-bacground-checks-guns/1990457/

 

You sound reasonable here, the NRA disagrees with you. Maybe folks like you should quit and start your own organization.

I don't see that as going to bat for irresponsible gun owners. He's basically saying background checks don't work on those who don't take them. Which is true but you have to start somewhere and I think proving you are basically law abiding and nonviolent is a fair starting point.

[5-Points 2,715]

No problem. And I don't think putting guns in the hands of violent criminals is their goal either but I think the NRA's reflexive commitment to gun rights sometimes has that consequence and that they're out of step with mainstream gun owners.

I can't say I disagree. I do think if there wasn't such a rabid anti-gun contingent in this country we might find some common ground to work with. Unfortunately at this point it's a "give em an inch, they'll take a mile" mindset. So both sides circle the wagons and dig in.