They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[2aguy]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Seriously.....are you seeing a professional....this post makes no sense.....the guy is what we call a criminal.....he is in no way a "Good Guy" with a gun...and the NRA fights to keep guns out of this guys hands...

It is that very scenario that makes many of us want to carry a gun for self defense....that guy is obviously a democrat....since most prisoners in custody or out on parole identify as democrat....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety.

The NRA does more for gun safety and training than any other organization in the world.

Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed.

This is a lie.
Universal background checks are unenforceable and so restrict the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose.
Restricting the rights of the law abiding for no good purpose violates the constitution.
This is why the NRA opposes them.

 

[BULLDOG]

NRA.ORG Statement Regarding Universal Background Checks
Statement Regarding Universal Background Checks

Nothing in your post negates what I said.
1: We have the background checks we have today because of the NRA
2: There is absolutely no support for the notion that the NRA supports criminals owning guns.

1. I agree with the present background checks that are only required for licensed dealers. They just don't prevent a lot of criminals from easily getting guns
2. Again.....The NRA killing implementation of universal background checks guarantees more criminals will easily get guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NRA.ORG Statement Regarding Universal Background Checks
Statement Regarding Universal Background Checks

Nothing in your post negates what I said.
1: We have the background checks we have today because of the NRA
2: There is absolutely no support for the notion that the NRA supports criminals owning guns.

1. I agree with the present background checks that are only required for licensed dealers. They just don't prevent a lot of criminals from easily getting guns

These background checks exist because the NRA got them enacted.
This negates any argument that the NRA opposes background checks.
Period.

 

[2aguy]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Bulldog....could you please explain how background checks have stopped the 8-9,000 gun murders that happen every year....do you think the gang members who commit 80% of those murders get background checks for their guns......and how did background checks stop the Sandy Hook killer, or the Vigrinia Tech killer, or the Santa Barbara Killer or the killers at Columbine.......since they all either passed one or more background checks or killed the people who did pass their background checks and stole their guns....

I became a life member of the NRA because they fight the political fight...and win....same with the 2nd amendment foundation.....gun safety doesn't matter if your gun is banned....

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Seriously.....are you seeing a professional....this post makes no sense.....the guy is what we call a criminal.....he is in no way a "Good Guy" with a gun...and the NRA fights to keep guns out of this guys hands...

It is that very scenario that makes many of us want to carry a gun for self defense....that guy is obviously a democrat....since most prisoners in custody or out on parole identify as democrat....

It's not complicated. The guy had a gun. At first, there was nothing to differentiate him from any other person there who might have carrying a gun, so in the eyes of the NRA, they were both good guys with a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not complicated. The guy had a gun. At first, there was nothing to differentiate him from any other person there who might have carrying a gun, so in the eyes of the NRA, they were both good guys with a gun.

In a free country....
-Everyone has the same rights until those rights are taken away thru due process.
-Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[MaxGrit]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Fake member.

 

[2aguy]

This is one problem with trying to add a mental health component to existing background checks...the irrational anti gun nuts will then try to use any interaction with a mental health practitioner as a reason to grab an individual's gun rights....

never, ever, trust an anti gunner...

 

[Flash]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

 

[Flash]

This is one problem with trying to add a mental health component to existing background checks...the irrational anti gun nuts will then try to use any interaction with a mental health practitioner as a reason to grab an individual's gun rights....

never, ever, trust an anti gunner...

Not all people that have had problems with mental heath sometime in their past is at risk for owning a firearm.

The fitly ass Obama Administration even tried to declare that veterans at risk if they had identified PTSD or older veterans that were disabled.

The problem is that the stupid Libtards are never to be trusted in matters like this. They will go overboard whenever possible. They are jerks when it comes to gun rights.

I am glad that in the case referenced the courts did the right thing and restored the rights of a citizen.

 

[2aguy]

The Australian gun control measures, which make anti gunners giddy with emotion, couldn't stop a convicted criminal from getting a gun and killing this people in the coffee shop....and they turned in their handguns.....


Again...try to explain how universal background checks stop criminals who are committing 8-9,000 gun murders each from getting guns...or how universal background checks would have stopped the public shooters who passed background checks before their shooting sprees or who stole their guns or bought them illegally to begin with.....

 

[peach174]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Seriously.....are you seeing a professional....this post makes no sense.....the guy is what we call a criminal.....he is in no way a "Good Guy" with a gun...and the NRA fights to keep guns out of this guys hands...

It is that very scenario that makes many of us want to carry a gun for self defense....that guy is obviously a democrat....since most prisoners in custody or out on parole identify as democrat....

Some people just don't seem to have the ability to think logically. Some have to add things and make it so complicated that they can't see the Forest through the Trees. Not everything is grey, some things are as simple as black and white and the left who say conservatives only see in black and white is not true. We use both and know when to see things in grey as well as black and white. the left seem to only look at grey.
You buy a gun you don't use it to commit a crime = good guy.
The minute you use it to commit a crime= bad guy.

 

[Porker]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is the NRA mentality. They don't care who has guns.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

Since you are likely a future victim being unarmed, you should listen to this guy. The best 7 minutes you could spend to be better informed re:firearms

-Geaux

 

[Porker]

I don't think they have actually said they want felons or the mentally adjudicated to have guns, but they almost universally oppose any action that would prevent it either. Can you show me all the programs they support that would, in fact, prevent either of those classes of people from getting a gun?

Key Word....almost. You're so full of it.

 

[g5000]

Do you really think everyone institutionalized come out fixed?

Do you really think someone who was depressed 28 YEARS AGO over his divorce is still crazy after all these years?

 

[g5000]

Here's the part Howey left out:

The law also syas that people must have a chance to prove that their disqualifying disabilities have ended in order to possess a firearm legally.

Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up “relief from disabilities program,” which was defunded in 1992. Michigan has not set one up, which left Tyler without a way to prove that his so-called “disability” should no longer apply.

A guy who sought psychiatric care 28 years ago during a divorce had no means by which to prove he was no longer disabled. That means is required by the law.

Michigan violated that requirement in the law.

 

[whitehall]

I didn't see any mention of the NRA in the link. I don't think the NRA is on record as sanctioning gun ownership for the mentally ill. My guess is that the ACLU might have brought the case.

 

[g5000]

Here is the court decision: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

The court did not say that taking a gun away from a mental patient is unconstitutional. So Howey's OP is a lie.

The decision plainly states the "lack of any procedure in Michigan for relief from the disability, violates his rights protected by the Federal Constitution".