NRA Never Again

[bigrebnc1775]

how much $ do you give to them annually lilrebnyc1775?

When does one have to be paid to do the right thing and defend the Constitution? It's an oath thing

what i asked is how much are YOU giving THEM annually?

again what does that matter? how much do you give obama to destroy what I and other Americans defend?

 

[whitehall]

There was a time when even democrat politicians proudly claimed that they were members of the NRA. JFK was even a life member. Alas , today the left wing has been conditioned by the liberal media like Pavlov's dogs. Mention the NRA and the left salivates.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There was a time when even democrat politicians proudly claimed that they were members of the NRA. JFK was even a life member. Alas , today the left wing has been conditioned by the liberal media like Pavlov's dogs. Mention the NRA and the left salivates.

Let's them salivate hopefully they'll drown on their juices

 

[Douger]

murkins aren't going to do shit.The simple fact that not one single TSA Nazi has been attacked, much less killed, while molesting children, wives, grandmothers etc is proof.Shave your hair, get a tattoo, buy some bullets and a "survival kit"......then ? Talk shit.
Taking your pow-pows away will be as easy as taking a bottle away from a baby. All there will be is lotsa tears.
Sure a few Rambo obsessed wanna be or former meatheads and steroid infested cop-heroes will go for the gold and wind up in a box. It happens all the time anyway.

murka lost the A, the R and the BR was replaced with SL.
merica,land of fee, home of slave.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

murkins aren't going to do shit.The simple fact that not one single TSA Nazi has been attacked, much less killed, while molesting children, wives, grandmothers etc is proof.Shave your hair, get a tattoo, buy some bullets and a "survival kit"......then ? Talk shit.
Taking your pow-pows away will be as easy as taking a bottle away from a baby. All there will be is lotsa tears.
Sure a few Rambo obsessed wanna be or former meatheads and steroid infested cop-heroes will go for the gold and wind up in a box. It happens all the time anyway.

murka lost the A, the R and the BR was replaced with SL.
merica,land of fee, home of slave.

so you have no room to talk you ran away like a little bitch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Uncle Ted

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyZsXwQlBYw]Ted Nugent on SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Ruling - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So tell why you see nothing wrong with the government taking those firearms? And the police murdering unarmed civilians?

When are you going to tell me why you supported the partiot act when it first started.

Think we have covered that already I explained I first supported it on the emotional factor until I researched it and saw no need of it. Took all of 6 weeks. Now I asked

So tell why you see nothing wrong with the government taking those firearms? And the police murdering unarmed civilians?

OH and by the way this also happen during Bush.

I see that UN citizen wants no more of this question.

 

[Harry Dresden]

murkins aren't going to do shit.The simple fact that not one single TSA Nazi has been attacked, much less killed, while molesting children, wives, grandmothers etc is proof.Shave your hair, get a tattoo, buy some bullets and a "survival kit"......then ? Talk shit.
Taking your pow-pows away will be as easy as taking a bottle away from a baby. All there will be is lotsa tears.
Sure a few Rambo obsessed wanna be or former meatheads and steroid infested cop-heroes will go for the gold and wind up in a box. It happens all the time anyway.

murka lost the A, the R and the BR was replaced with SL.
merica,land of fee, home of slave.

so you have no room to talk you ran away like a little bitch.

yep because the "Muslims" were coming.....and then he says if a cop came on his property he would shoot the fucker out right.....i wonder if that would be before or after he pisses himself.....

 

[rightwinger]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4]NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

That's what happens when you elect a Republican as President....Gun Confiscation

 

[Full-Auto]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4]NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

That's what happens when you elect a Republican as President....Gun Confiscation

Yes, funny how that happens in the democrat lead areas.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4]NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

That's what happens when you elect a Republican as President....Gun Confiscation

Or a democratic mayor who appointed this man

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/national/nationalspecial/28storm.html?_r=1

 

[bigrebnc1775]

murkins aren't going to do shit.The simple fact that not one single TSA Nazi has been attacked, much less killed, while molesting children, wives, grandmothers etc is proof.Shave your hair, get a tattoo, buy some bullets and a "survival kit"......then ? Talk shit.
Taking your pow-pows away will be as easy as taking a bottle away from a baby. All there will be is lotsa tears.
Sure a few Rambo obsessed wanna be or former meatheads and steroid infested cop-heroes will go for the gold and wind up in a box. It happens all the time anyway.

murka lost the A, the R and the BR was replaced with SL.
merica,land of fee, home of slave.

so you have no room to talk you ran away like a little bitch.

yep because the "Muslims" were coming.....and then he says if a cop came on his property he would shoot the fucker out right.....i wonder if that would be before or after he pisses himself.....

He would piss himself first then shit himself afterwards

 

[beagle9]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4]NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

I guess it was that the governments position was, that they couldn't trust that gangs wouldnot be around to take posession of these weapons, and so it was that they were trying to keep people who had them from getting killed by trying to hang on to these weapons in such an unstable situation or enviroment, and this once they (the government/rescue/police) made it to their area in which was to be secured and then cleared. If the elder woman for example, would have had her gun stolen, and in the process her life taken, then the gun would have been taken and used on another or even a police officer trying to do his or her job. This I guess was the position of the government in the situation. I just don't believe that the New Orleans situation was a good example of government taking the weapons, and this because of the unstable situation there, in which presented a unique set of circumstances for everyone involved. However what would make the governments case, is if they had made sure that all legal weapons were returned to their legal and responsible owners afterwards. Now if the government didnot do this, then I think that a law suit should be brought against them for the direct violation of the peoples second amendment rights to own and bare firearms in this nation.

Hec, if the people were smart in the New Orleans situation, they would have sought out the police, and asked them to hold their weapons until the crisis was over, because the last thing that these people wanted, would have been to be surrounded by a gang with guns, killed and their guns taken to grow the gang and looting situation even bigger than it was in that situation (or) worse a person would have mistaken a person who had come to help, for a bad guy due to the fear in the situation, and would have accidentally killed that person. Deputizing would have been another way to get the situation better under control, where as the citizens who could be deputized at the check points with their guns, would have been put under the law in order to help them (the police) to police the situation in their communities, and this by wearing a certain suttle color given them by law-enforcment upon this deputization found within the situation. There are many ways to tweak and look back at a situation now to figure out the best thing to do, and not doing this just leaves the door wide open for trouble of epic proportions to come once again in such a situation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4]NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

I guess it was that the governments position was, that they couldn't trust that gangs wouldnot be around to take posession of these weapons, and to keep people who had them from getting killed trying to hang on to these weapons in such an unstable situation. If the elder woman for example, would have had her gun stolen, and in the process her life taken, then the gun would have been taken and used on another or even a police officer trying to do his or her job was the position of the government in the situation. I just don't believe that the New Orleans situation was a good example of government taking the weapons, because of the unstable situation there, in which presented a unique set of circumstances for everyone involved. However what would make the governments case, is if they had made sure that all legal weapons were returned to their legal and responsible owners afterwards. Now if the government didnot do this, then I think that a law suit should be brought against them for the direct violation of the peoples second amendment rights to own and bare firearms in this nation.

Hec, if the people were smart in the New Orleans situation, they would have sought out the police, and asked them to hold their weapons until the crisis was over, because the last thing that these people wanted, would have been to be surrounded by a gang with guns, killed and their guns taken to grow the gang and looting situation even bigger than it was in that situation (or) worse a person would have mistaken a person who had come to help, for a bad guy due to the fear in the situation, and would have accidentally killed that person. Deputizing would have been another way to get the situation better under control, where as the citizens who could be deputized at the check points with their guns, would have been put under the law in order to help them (the police) to police the situation in their communities, and this by wearing a certain suttle color given them by law-enforcment upon this deputization found within the situation. There are many ways to tweak and look back at a situation now to figure out the best thing to do, and not doing this just leaves the door wide open for trouble of epic proportions to come once again in such a situation.

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

Some did not, nevertheless that matters not they should never had their firearms taken away period.

 

[Meister]

Could be coming to a neighborhood close to you.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

 

[Harry Dresden]

so you have no room to talk you ran away like a little bitch.

yep because the "Muslims" were coming.....and then he says if a cop came on his property he would shoot the fucker out right.....i wonder if that would be before or after he pisses himself.....

He would piss himself first then shit himself afterwards

and then maybe do us all a favor and shoot himself....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Could be coming to a neighborhood close to you.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes

Just seeing the letters UN and the word agreement was enough to piss me off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yep because the "Muslims" were coming.....and then he says if a cop came on his property he would shoot the fucker out right.....i wonder if that would be before or after he pisses himself.....

He would piss himself first then shit himself afterwards

and then maybe do us all a favor and shoot himself....

He's a coward that negated his responsibility for personal gain.

 

[beagle9]

Who says the government will never take your guns? It's happen before but I refuse to allow it to happen to me.



NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

I guess it was that the governments position was, that they couldn't trust that gangs wouldnot be around to take posession of these weapons, and to keep people who had them from getting killed trying to hang on to these weapons in such an unstable situation. If the elder woman for example, would have had her gun stolen, and in the process her life taken, then the gun would have been taken and used on another or even a police officer trying to do his or her job was the position of the government in the situation. I just don't believe that the New Orleans situation was a good example of government taking the weapons, because of the unstable situation there, in which presented a unique set of circumstances for everyone involved. However what would make the governments case, is if they had made sure that all legal weapons were returned to their legal and responsible owners afterwards. Now if the government didnot do this, then I think that a law suit should be brought against them for the direct violation of the peoples second amendment rights to own and bare firearms in this nation.

Hec, if the people were smart in the New Orleans situation, they would have sought out the police, and asked them to hold their weapons until the crisis was over, because the last thing that these people wanted, would have been to be surrounded by a gang with guns, killed and their guns taken to grow the gang and looting situation even bigger than it was in that situation (or) worse a person would have mistaken a person who had come to help, for a bad guy due to the fear in the situation, and would have accidentally killed that person. Deputizing would have been another way to get the situation better under control, where as the citizens who could be deputized at the check points with their guns, would have been put under the law in order to help them (the police) to police the situation in their communities, and this by wearing a certain suttle color given them by law-enforcment upon this deputization found within the situation. There are many ways to tweak and look back at a situation now to figure out the best thing to do, and not doing this just leaves the door wide open for trouble of epic proportions to come once again in such a situation.

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

Some did not, nevertheless that matters not they should never had their firearms taken away period.

I can agree, but for the saftey of some in various situations (like the little ole lady for example), but not in the unmanored way in which it was done to her in that video, but even so I think it was a good thing.

I mean what would she had done if threatened by criminals who wanted to take her food in that situation ? Nothing is what she would have done, that would have been safe and good for her to do. Lets say that maybe she could have shot a round off or two (you know to scare the perps), but then the others would have heard these shots, and thought to themselves a vulnerable little ole lady with a gun? Then they would have went there not for her food or for her dogs, but for that gun, in order to commit bigger crimes as a team found in gangs roaming the communities in that situiation. Once an area was come upon by law enforcement for clearing, then the gun owners who were in that area, should have been able to leave with their guns to a safe zone, and if they were uncertain about taking their weapons with them, then there should have been provisions provided them by the law, to store their weapons until they chose to pick them back up at a later date. Somewhere in this nation, trust has to be formed between the law and the good citizens again, because this is the huge problem this nation is having in all of this to date. NO TRUST ANYMORE!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

I guess it was that the governments position was, that they couldn't trust that gangs wouldnot be around to take posession of these weapons, and to keep people who had them from getting killed trying to hang on to these weapons in such an unstable situation. If the elder woman for example, would have had her gun stolen, and in the process her life taken, then the gun would have been taken and used on another or even a police officer trying to do his or her job was the position of the government in the situation. I just don't believe that the New Orleans situation was a good example of government taking the weapons, because of the unstable situation there, in which presented a unique set of circumstances for everyone involved. However what would make the governments case, is if they had made sure that all legal weapons were returned to their legal and responsible owners afterwards. Now if the government didnot do this, then I think that a law suit should be brought against them for the direct violation of the peoples second amendment rights to own and bare firearms in this nation.

Hec, if the people were smart in the New Orleans situation, they would have sought out the police, and asked them to hold their weapons until the crisis was over, because the last thing that these people wanted, would have been to be surrounded by a gang with guns, killed and their guns taken to grow the gang and looting situation even bigger than it was in that situation (or) worse a person would have mistaken a person who had come to help, for a bad guy due to the fear in the situation, and would have accidentally killed that person. Deputizing would have been another way to get the situation better under control, where as the citizens who could be deputized at the check points with their guns, would have been put under the law in order to help them (the police) to police the situation in their communities, and this by wearing a certain suttle color given them by law-enforcment upon this deputization found within the situation. There are many ways to tweak and look back at a situation now to figure out the best thing to do, and not doing this just leaves the door wide open for trouble of epic proportions to come once again in such a situation.

My question is, did everyone get their guns back ?

Some did not, nevertheless that matters not they should never had their firearms taken away period.

I can agree, but for the saftey of some in various situations (like the little ole lady for example), but not in the unmanored way in which it was done to her in that video, but even so I think it was a good thing.

I mean what would she had done if threatened by criminals who wanted to take her food in that situation ? Nothing is what she would have done, that would have been safe and good for her to do. Lets say that maybe she could have shot a round off or two (you know to scare the perps), but then the others would have heard these shots, and thought to themselves a vulnerable little ole lady with a gun? Then they would have went there not for her food or for her dogs, but for that gun, in order to commit bigger crimes as a team found in gangs roaming the communities in that situiation. Once an area was come upon by law enforcement for clearing, then the gun owners who were in that area, should have been able to leave with their guns to a safe zone, and if they were uncertain about taking their weapons with them, then there should have been provisions provided them by the law, to store their weapons until they chose to pick them back up at a later date. Somewhere in this nation, trust has to be formed between the law and the good citizens again, because this is the huge problem this nation is having in all of this to date. NO TRUST ANYMORE!

Dude why have any firearms if you think tuning them in is a good thing? That is exactly when you need them when you think for safety you must turn them in.
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!