NRA endorses Romney, Ryan

[rightwinger]

You should see what can happen on a Friday or Saturday night up in my neck of the woods.

One knife many dead many wounded.

Death does not embrace a gun. Death is in the hands of the person weilding it.

Nothing wrong with a good quality knife or machete. Chain saw is even better

But to be honest, you cant get a good massacre going without a reliable automatic or semiautomatic weapon with a monster magazine.

Or a pump action shotgun, or a lever action rifle, or, in an unarmed crowd, with a couple of revolvers and fast loaders.

Also the "monster" magazines tend to jam really quickly, making the gun the equivalent of an expensive club.

If you want to restrict semi-automatic weapons, amend the 2nd amendment, if not, tough.

Well said

A properly executed massacre requires reliable rapid fire capabilities with limitless access to ammunition. Stopping to reload gives the little buggers time to escape. Body armor completes the ensemble

 

[martybegan]

First, i dont actually own a gun. I live in NYC so its not really that easy to get one. I just believe in the right of citizens to own the same armament agents of the state can own, except those agents of the military.

Second, any time a gun control person uses the term "common sense" I want to vomit. Its weasel words to basically pre-emtively restrict someone from getting a gun because of something they "might do", not any previous bad act or restricting condition.

Third, we take for granted an organized society, with civil rule and free flow of material goods. While limited there are plenty of scenarios that would disrupt the above steady state condition. At that point, do you really want the only armed people to be state agents and criminals?

Also, technically a home invasion when you are not home is a burglary.

If you want to limit the arms a person can have beyond the Firearm Act of 1934 and the existing laws preventing felons and ceritifed mental cases, amend the second amendment. Until then, repsect the consitution please.

Sorry, the second amendment is about militias, not gun ownership, and the Founding Slave-Owners never thought that we'd have a situation where Joker Holmes would not only be free to roam teh streets, but able to buy a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round barrel clip. To them, that would have been sorcery. If you really want a second amendment limit, people should only be allowed to own muzzle-loading flintlocks.

There's really no good reason for average citizens to own guns. Yes, if you enjoy shooting or hunting as a hobby, you should be allowed to engage in it, but only after you've passed a rigorous background check and act responsibly within the rules.

The notion you need it to protect yourself from bad guys (who probably stole their guns from another law-abiding gun owner) or from the government is just plain silly.

And the first amendment limited to printing presses, and horse delivered correspondance. That dog doesnt hunt.

If the 2nd amendment is about miltias, then why do the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, and not the "states?". If they were really writing about the individual states having the right, and not the people, why didnt they write that explicitly? Another dog that doesnt hunt.

If you dont want to own a weapon, fine. It does not give you the right to infringe upon someone elses EXPLICIT consitutional right. Again, amend the 2nd amendment if you dont like it.

 

[martybegan]

Nothing wrong with a good quality knife or machete. Chain saw is even better

But to be honest, you cant get a good massacre going without a reliable automatic or semiautomatic weapon with a monster magazine.

Or a pump action shotgun, or a lever action rifle, or, in an unarmed crowd, with a couple of revolvers and fast loaders.

Also the "monster" magazines tend to jam really quickly, making the gun the equivalent of an expensive club.

If you want to restrict semi-automatic weapons, amend the 2nd amendment, if not, tough.

Well said

A properly executed massacre requires reliable rapid fire capabilities with limitless access to ammunition. Stopping to reload gives the little buggers time to escape. Body armor completes the ensemble

First, this is not a late 1990's video game. There is no such thing as limitless ammuniton, the stuff is damn heavy.

Also a well trained shooter can reload in mere seconds, and with regular magazines the chance of a jam is far less.

Nice work with the smugness, though, I give you 7/10 for the snarkyness of your post, but only 2/10 on actual content.

As for body armor, its not as effective as you think. The purpose of most armor is not to let you keep shooting, but to prevent fatal injury. you get hit with a strong enough bullet, you are down on your ass from the kinetic impact alone. The idea is hopefully you are not alone (in a police or miltiary situation) and your squadmates/partner can take out the threat while you get your ass off the ground and check for any holes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Lets be honest here...

You really can't expect someone to shoot up a movie theater without full and open acces to the weapons of their choice

Mass slayings are a right of passage in some areas and open access to guns makes it all possible

God bless our second amendment rights

You should see what can happen on a Friday or Saturday night up in my neck of the woods.

One knife many dead many wounded.

Death does not embrace a gun. Death is in the hands of the person weilding it.

Nothing wrong with a good quality knife or machete. Chain saw is even better

But to be honest, you cant get a good massacre going without a reliable automatic or semiautomatic weapon with a monster magazine.

Actually, you can, easily: gasoline, Styrofoam, and an ignition source. It's called napalm.

 

[Jarlaxle]

First, i dont actually own a gun. I live in NYC so its not really that easy to get one. I just believe in the right of citizens to own the same armament agents of the state can own, except those agents of the military.

Second, any time a gun control person uses the term "common sense" I want to vomit. Its weasel words to basically pre-emtively restrict someone from getting a gun because of something they "might do", not any previous bad act or restricting condition.

Third, we take for granted an organized society, with civil rule and free flow of material goods. While limited there are plenty of scenarios that would disrupt the above steady state condition. At that point, do you really want the only armed people to be state agents and criminals?

Also, technically a home invasion when you are not home is a burglary.

If you want to limit the arms a person can have beyond the Firearm Act of 1934 and the existing laws preventing felons and ceritifed mental cases, amend the second amendment. Until then, repsect the consitution please.

Sorry, the second amendment is about militias, not gun ownership, and the Founding Slave-Owners never thought that we'd have a situation where Joker Holmes would not only be free to roam teh streets, but able to buy a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round barrel clip. To them, that would have been sorcery. If you really want a second amendment limit, people should only be allowed to own muzzle-loading flintlocks.

There's really no good reason for average citizens to own guns. Yes, if you enjoy shooting or hunting as a hobby, you should be allowed to engage in it, but only after you've passed a rigorous background check and act responsibly within the rules.

The notion you need it to protect yourself from bad guys (who probably stole their guns from another law-abiding gun owner) or from the government is just plain silly.

My uncle is ALIVE because he carries a pistol. Without it, he would be dead.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question for all you gun defenders........................

Can you post a link to ONE restriction that Obama has enacted under his presidency that restricts gun ownership?

There are none.

 

[JoeB131]

And the first amendment limited to printing presses, and horse delivered correspondance. That dog doesnt hunt.

If the 2nd amendment is about miltias, then why do the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, and not the "states?". If they were really writing about the individual states having the right, and not the people, why didnt they write that explicitly? Another dog that doesnt hunt.

If you dont want to own a weapon, fine. It does not give you the right to infringe upon someone elses EXPLICIT consitutional right. Again, amend the 2nd amendment if you dont like it.

Guy, doesn't work that way. The SCOTUS has ruled that gun ownership CAN be restricted. US v. Miller, to start with.

We just need to get rid of a couple knuckle draggers on the Supreme Court.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Miller is one of the three worst USSC decisions in history.

 

[JoeB131]

Miller is one of the three worst USSC decisions in history.

Frankly, not really.

Let's pretend for a moment that the 2nd Amendment and it's idiotic syntax didn't exist.

What real practical reason do average citizens need to have guns?

There isn't one.

 

[Dissent]

Defend against Tyranny,lets see countries that took their citizens guns away
Hitlers Germany
Communist Russia
Communist Castro..


Do we see a pattern here!? They all led the massacres of the population because they had no weapons to defend themselves.Either way we don't need a damn reason to have a weapon,its in the constitution plain and simple. The founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to be used to shoot game they intended it to be used to shoot tyrants.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The NRA is supporting Romney. Now that is a shocker.

I agree with you.. NO shocker that the NRA ONLY supports freedom loving Americans!

 

[Lovebears65]

Lets be honest here...

You really can't expect someone to shoot up a movie theater without full and open acces to the weapons of their choice

Mass slayings are a right of passage in some areas and open access to guns makes it all possible

God bless our second amendment rights

You know if more people was packing , it probably would not happened. If ONE person in this theater had a concealed weapon. Could have taken this joker out! No pun attended.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

NRA endorses Romney/Ryan

Can I get a HELL YEAH?!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Lets be honest here...

You really can't expect someone to shoot up a movie theater without full and open acces to the weapons of their choice

Mass slayings are a right of passage in some areas and open access to guns makes it all possible

God bless our second amendment rights

You know if more people was packing , it probably would not happened. If ONE person in this theater had a concealed weapon. Could have taken this joker out! No pun attended.

I agree

You pepper the theater with half dozen people packing. Now, our gun loving perp pops up and takes out ten to twelve in the first fusillade. Now our second amendment remedy crowd pops up and starts firing back. Takes out the perp and maybe three or four surrounding him

America, is this a great country or what?

 

[JoeB131]

Defend against Tyranny,lets see countries that took their citizens guns away
Hitlers Germany
Communist Russia
Communist Castro..


Do we see a pattern here!? They all led the massacres of the population because they had no weapons to defend themselves.Either way we don't need a damn reason to have a weapon,its in the constitution plain and simple. The founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to be used to shoot game they intended it to be used to shoot tyrants.

The only pattern I see here is your complete ignorance of history.

The problem in Communist Russia, and why that was such a bloodbath was because there were too many fucking guns. The Tsar armed nearly every able bodied male, and the ones the Germans didn't kill came home and fought a civil war for a decade.

Germany didn't ban guns under the Nazis. In fact, gun control didn't come to Germany until after the war, and that radical commie, Dwight D. Eisenhower, ordered a disarmerment of German citizens.

Castro's Cuba. Most people were too poor to own guns.

 

[Dissent]

By your brilliant logic of to many guns then why is it the citizenry of Switzerland ALL own guns yet have one of the lowest crime rates? The shots fired at lexington was because the British commander had been ordered to disarm the citizenry. You don't want to own guns fine go ahead but there ain't no way in hell a government in this country will disarm the people....they aren't that stupid...and they are some really dumb folks...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As already correctly noted: ‘what a shock’!

Just a few gun thread points:

The Second Amendment addresses the right to self-defense, with the handgun the chosen means of exercising that right; there is no right to own a gun per se, hence the many restrictions being upheld as Constitutional, save that of an outright ban on firearms.

It’s a similar legal theory as the right to privacy, where a woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she has the right to privacy, and the state may place limits and restrictions on abortion, but may not ban it outright.

Also…

Those who disagree with Heller/McDonald need to take care from a consistency standpoint, as that argument could undermine Griswold/Roe/Casey and privacy rights.

Those who disagree with Griswold/Roe/Casey need to take care from a consistency standpoint, as that argument could undermine Heller/McDonald and self-defense rights.

And Obama has a better record on gun rights than did GWB.

 

[rightwinger]

By your brilliant logic of to many guns then why is it the citizenry of Switzerland ALL own guns yet have one of the lowest crime rates? The shots fired at lexington was because the British commander had been ordered to disarm the citizenry. You don't want to own guns fine go ahead but there ain't no way in hell a government in this country will disarm the people....they aren't that stupid...and they are some really dumb folks...

The Swiss will be peaceful whether they own guns or not

The militia at Lexington were driven away by the Brits

 

[Dissent]

I doubt the Swiss would be peaceful if their government tried taking their guns away. Its a peaceful country because its a free country that allows its citizens the freedom to choose for themselves...they make sure they are armed and know how to use them. No one is dumb enough to try and commit a crime in Switzerland.Yes the militia drove away the brits but the reason they had to do so was because the British commander was under orders to seize all arms.

 

[JoeB131]

By your brilliant logic of to many guns then why is it the citizenry of Switzerland ALL own guns yet have one of the lowest crime rates? The shots fired at lexington was because the British commander had been ordered to disarm the citizenry. You don't want to own guns fine go ahead but there ain't no way in hell a government in this country will disarm the people....they aren't that stupid...and they are some really dumb folks...

I think it's impractical to disarm the country, and no one is really suggesting it...

I think we need laws so that Joker Holmes can't walk into a gun story and buy a 100 Round clip. That would be kind of sensible.

Switerland doesn't have a violence problem because they don't have a poverty problem. They have a nice welfare state where everyone is taken care of.