N.R.A.--Hit's New Low

[Newt]

Texas follows NY lead and publishes location of each gun owner. Does the state of Texas have as many murders as Chicago.
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/39 ... wners.aspx

[Bunnyblaster]

Sorry but I have to disagree. He may have loosened carry laws in some areas but reducing magazine clips and eliminating assault weapons is a foot in the door. He passed executive orders after this tragedy because it was the most politically popular time to do it which in my view also tramples on the constitution. He could have done this in the first month of his first term if it was that important. Or even following one of the other massacres that didn't happen to involve children.


And as for the ad............maybe a not so good approach but what is wrong with protecting our kids in school with armed personnel?? Of course the family of any higher up in our government is going to require more security and protection than our average kids in our average schools but why shouldn't the option be included? At least for each school to decide for themselves?? He obviously recognizes the need for armed protection for his children and also recognizes the value of it so if it's good enough for his kids then why is it not ok for the rest of us??

[Pine Mt Beagles]

Bunny

I have no problem with guard's at school's ,in fact I'am all for that ,especially in some area's ,But,By Guard ,I don't mean some pot bellied old man ,with a uniform from the Salvation Army ,I want a guard ,in fatigues, physically fit fully trained.

I can't remember a President tha did not have security for his Family -This one Need's more than most ,since he has had more threat's than any President so far.

That should have been a priatory year's ago,Our Children should be the number one concern.


As for the Magazine's capacity,I 'am not for it,or banning assualt weapon's ,All that will do is cause the attacker's to practice and be more accurate-,BUT,the President ,did not do either ,There is nothing in the 23 part's he signed to hurt a gun owner,what will hurt us ,as gun owner's ,Is the NRA making it a personal attack on the President ,that will in fact cause problem's .

[bluemouse]

The add does nothing to harm obabbler. I believe the add was not in good taste and obabbler surrounding himself with children while signing his crap was also in bad taste. The knife cuts both ways. If you look at the examples obabbler spoke about the letters from the kids they were asking for protection and he used that for his agenda. Does anybody believe these kids would want armed protection over a ban on guns and which will be more protection guards or bans.

[Bunnyblaster]

As for the Magazine's capacity,I 'am not for it,or banning assualt weapon's ,All that will do is cause the attacker's to practice and be more accurate-,BUT,the President ,did not do either ,There is nothing in the 23 part's he signed to hurt a gun owner,what will hurt us ,as gun owner's ,Is the NRA making it a personal attack on the President ,that will in fact cause problem's .

PMB, you're splitting hairs with this one. While you are correct and it is not in the executive orders it IS in his proposed plan which he pointed out during his speech. So does this hurt gun owners and the 2nd amendment if it is allowed to pass?

[Pine Mt Beagles]

An executive order is signed by,The President-- not voted on ,If -it is Voted on and passed ,By,most standard's it is considered to be ,the will of the people.

No matter what happen's -all of us will not agree anyway,

Bunny -Remember we just talked about the Importance of one word ,in a sentence the other day ,,,there is one word in all of this ,that stand's out as most important to me.

But ,I am not an assault weapon kind of guy ,I don't want them banned ,But ,I never put more than one shell in my gun for deer ,or Varmint hunting,--just rabbit or,wing shooting.

Not ,solely the President only.------That was my point.

My self have already sent mail to many congressmen and senator's ,called my local sheriff,and state representative ,for what little god it will do ,,,I can not do any thing about any of this and either can you .or any one on this bard ,,But,all of us together might ,,and that will never happen.

[weekendbeagler]

............God bless the NRA. I'm a lifetime member and donate $1000 a year. This afternoon I shot 150 rds in my AR15 Bushmaster . Man is it fun ticking off my lefty neighbor.

[Bunnyblaster]

Sorry to continue to be argumentative but proposing a bill that imo goes against the 2nd amendment at least to a certain degree means going against the constitution. I don't ever remember reading anywhere that it states what style of gun you are allowed to own or how many bullets your magazine can hold.

But suppose I agree and say you are correct and let's say it gets voted in by our elected officials which means according to you then that it is the will of the people then doesn't the same logic apply for the fiscal cliff deal?? The deal that was finally reached that you complained about because republicans didn't raise enough taxes?? Or is that not also considered the will of the people.

I'm obviously being a little sarcastic here but I get tired of people on both sides always blaming the other side for everything and then when something comes up like this then it's still not their fault somehow. Yes I understand the difference between and executive order and a bill that has to be voted into existence. But he proposed it, he advocates it and he owns it regardless of what his intentions are and there is no denying that or trying to skirt around it.

Also, I am not an assault rifle kind of guy.........never have been and never will be. Sure it'd be cool to shoot one but I'm not into just shooting or guns enough to have a want for one. But just the designation of what type of gun it is should not exclude from protection by our 2nd amendment. I look at it much like guys who have to own a big ole truck or the fastest snowmobile...........to them it's just cool to have and use and that's what they want and I say if it floats your boat then have at it.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

Re: N.R.A.--Hit's New Low
by Bunnyblaster » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:54 am

Sorry to continue to be argumentative but proposing a bill that imo goes against the 2nd amendment at least to a certain degree means going against the constitution. I don't ever remember reading anywhere that it states what style of gun you are allowed to own or how many bullets your magazine can hold.

You do know this ban has been in effect before right.and that several Republican's ,were calling for it before the president did.

But suppose I agree and say you are correct and let's say it gets voted in by our elected officials which means according to you then that it is the will of the people then doesn't the same logic apply for the fiscal cliff deal?? The deal that was finally reached that you complained about because republicans didn't raise enough taxes?? Or is that not also considered the will of the people.

That is an interesting way of looking at it .

Not close in Comparison,,The Fiscal Cliff was Republican's ,holding working America and, people retired,and ,Social Security people hostage for one reason to cater to the Elite.Causing hard ship on people ,running up the debt ,Job's,---That had nothing to do with the will of the people.For many it was and still is survival.
But,Still ,I will stick with the constitution on the second amendment,even though ,I can do nothing about it ,I don't want Gun's messed with.

I'm obviously being a little sarcastic here but I get tired of people on both sides always blaming the other side for everything and then when something comes up like this then it's still not their fault somehow. Yes I understand the difference between and executive order and a bill that has to be voted into existence. But he proposed it, he advocates it and he owns it regardless of what his intentions are and there is no denying that or trying to skirt around it.

-Short answer --No one here Blames both sides--I blame Republican's-the rest Blame Democrat's.

But,Both sides will have a hand in this or it want pass, And Remember -The Republican poster Boy ,Ronald Regan-->was the First Gun control advocate in he White.----And I did vote for Regan Twice.Because with his fault's he was still the best choice at the time.

Also, I am not an assault rifle kind of guy.........never have been and never will be. Sure it'd be cool to shoot one but I'm not into just shooting or guns enough to have a want for one. But just the designation of what type of gun it is should not exclude from protection by our 2nd amendment. I look at it much like guys who have to own a big ole truck or the fastest snowmobile...........to them it's just cool to have and use and that's what they want and I say if it floats your boat then have at it.

I have never advocated against any gun of any kind,A gun is nothing more than a tool,That said ,I did read an ineresting post today ---When the second Amendment ,was originally put in the constitution,---the most Power full rifle was a flint lock single shot ,that took a bit to re-load.And the founder's did not antipcate auto matic weapon's.

My -reply to that post was simple,at that time in history you could legally own a cannon if you could afford it.


But,A point here, I have actually enjoyed our last couple debates ,more than any ,I have in a long time.
I would ask a question ,and we will have to start another topic to really get into it.
We have seen over the last 4 year's the most partisan ,Government in decades, Why .You can start another thread or I will should be interesting.

[Newt]

In their latest rush to further emasculate the Second Amendment, many on the Left are taking aim at the Internet.

Of course, illegal online sales of weapons and ammunition should be stopped--though the practice isn’t nearly as prevalent as the left would have you believe.

But progressives are also looking to ban legal online sales through a bevy of new gun control resolutions, including H.R. 142, which "would ban Internet or mail order ammunition purchases."

Meanwhile, the state of New York just passed a ban on Internet “assault weapon” sales.

Progressives act as though the move to end all online weapons transactions is just that simple--wave a gavel, pass a law, and it’s done. Just like with guns themselves--declare a gun-free school zone, and all schools will be gun-free.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

NEWT

I CAN'T FIND ANY INFO ,ABOUT ANYONE TRYING TO STOP THESE SALES IN FACT ,I PURCHASED -4 -TODAY--AND ,I FINALLY FOUND A DOZEN ,OF THEM--RUGER 10/22 MAGAZINES -,(( THAT ARE VERY HARD TO FIND EVEN AT TRIPLE THE PRICE )) ,,FROM A PLACE THAT HAD NOT ,,RAISED THE PRICE SO I ,GOT ALL 12 OF THEM,,,IN FACT ,,MY INVENTORY ,,IS REAL GOOD ,, FOR ABOUT 20 YEAR'S ,AS FAR AS ,DEER HUNTING ,,RABBIT HUNTING,,VARMIT HUNTING,,BIRD HUNTING,,SQUIRREL HUNTING,,IN FACT I ,SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIG INTO ,MY RELOADING SUPPLES FOR ABOUT 20 YEAR'S ,SINCE, I ONLY HAVE -5-SON'S COUNTING GRAND SON'S.

AND NO ONE ,IS GOING TO BOTHER ,THE SECOND AMENDMENT ,ANYWAY.THE PRESIDENT FIXED THAT,JUST WAIT AND SEE.

[Chris Shoopman]

You give them a INch They will Take a MILE!....hold on tight boys this is going to be a fight!!!

[Bunnyblaster]

First yes I know the law was in effect before and then not which imo was a good thing so that doesn't give him a free pass for proposing it a second time around. Just admit that you think he's wrong.

As for the rest of your post I started to read it but you just continue to make excuses. Bottom line for you is if democrats propose or pass something then it's a good deal in your eyes regardless of the actual results we may see down the road. If you want to say that republicans took advantage of their position and held americans "hostage" with the fiscal cliff deal then fine but once again you can't have it both ways. Either it is the will of the people in both cases or the president exploited a tragedy and his position to try to gain some ground on gun laws which we all know is gonna swing the other way again once the dust settles and everyone calms down again just like you're saying the republicans took advantage of their position during the fiscal cliff deal.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

So bascally you didn't read the posy just shruged it off ,and blame Democrat's because Republican's ,only support the Elite.

[Bunnyblaster]

Don't get snippy..........I did end up reading it as I answered your questions. So no excuses for the elite here.......just real questions for one of my democrat counterparts.