NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[kaz]

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

Remember the blue wave came on election night. If a Democrat tells you a blue wave is coming, it's coming. Remember this?

Whatever helps you sleep at night..

Rrrriiiiiiggggghhhhttttttt. I'm the one who needs to keep that in mind ....

 

[mikegriffith1]

NRA issues threatening video warning journalists 'your time is running out'

The NRA is becoming a terrorist organization that uses threats and intimidation to achieve their goals. This looks more like an ISIS video than an NRA video. When will journalist begin dying?

The Putin playbook is playing out before our very eyes..

You are trying to stir up hate and persecution with lies and distortions. And as for the "Putin playbook," your side wants the same kinds of gun laws that Putin's Russia has. Let that sink in: You guys are pushing for the same kinds of gun laws that they have in Russia.

Putin does not want a heavily armed America; he wants an America that has been disarmed as much as possible.

 

[JoeMoma]

BTW, I'll change my view when someone can show the NRA killing someone or threatening to kill someone.

How about abetting school shootings? Does that count?

I’m about to fry up a mess of brains on drugs for breakfast.

 

[Taz]

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

 

[Taz]

You can abet a crime and be convicted for that, even if you're not the shooter. Now you know.

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

Wow.

By that same logic, if you ban guns for those under 21, then YOU and those who promoted the ban, are guilty of murder for all the families that are killed because they didn't have a gun.

I'll take that chance because it's outweighed so heavily by all the lives you'd be saving.

 

[Taz]

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.

oh wow, two of you in here saying the same thing. ahh the new bumper sticker came out eh? LOL. Why don't you post those restrictions? Let's see what you know beyond the bumper sticker.

Do you agree that there are already "arms" that you are not allowed to buy?

 

[kaz]

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

You need to look up the definition of "infringed" because you're clearly doing it

 

[kaz]

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

Wow.

By that same logic, if you ban guns for those under 21, then YOU and those who promoted the ban, are guilty of murder for all the families that are killed because they didn't have a gun.

I'll take that chance because it's outweighed so heavily by all the lives you'd be saving.

You mean like the lives you saved in Florida when you disarmed the teachers and administrators who had CC permits?

Now that is abetting murder ...

 

[Taz]

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

It couldn't possibly be because they're an organization of gun owners and those who support the right to own guns, some of whom are under the age of 21? Nahh, that would be too simple and logical.

Maybe those who already own those "soon to be banned guns" didn't want to lose the right to own their own property? Also too simple and logical.

Since Florida never mentioned taking certain guns away, your hypothesis suffers an EPIC FAIL. Better luck next time.

 

[Taz]

Show me evidence that all people under 21 in general are too dangerous to be trusted with firearms.

Boy, 3, shot in the head by 6-year-old brother, police say

Game. Set. Match. Better luck next time... again.

 

[Taz]

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

 

[kaz]

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

You do realize the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, unions, ... lobby and pay off politicians in Washington, don't you?

BTW, the NRA supports gun rights for honest citizens, not guns. We only want guns in the hands of good guys and we want them to know how to use them safely.

On the other hand, you fight for rights for bad guys. Criminals, illegal aliens, sexual predators. The worse the better for you

 

[Taz]

You mean like the lives you saved in Florida when you disarmed the teachers and administrators who had CC permits?

Now that is abetting murder ...

I wasn't the one who did that, nor would I agree with that, so your comment suffered an EPIC FAIL! Better luck next time.

 

[Taz]

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

You need to look up the definition of "infringed" because you're clearly doing it

The right itself isn't being infringed, you still have the right to bear arms, you just can't own a nuke.

 

[Taz]

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

You do realize the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, unions, ... lobby and pay off politicians in Washington, don't you?

BTW, the NRA supports gun rights for honest citizens, not guns. We only want guns in the hands of good guys and we want them to know how to use them safely.

On the other hand, you fight for rights for bad guys. Criminals, illegal aliens, sexual predators. The worse the better for you

So you admit that the NRA pays off politicians in Washington to block legislation aimed at guns. Good for you.

 

[kaz]

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

You need to look up the definition of "infringed" because you're clearly doing it

The right itself isn't being infringed, you still have the right to bear arms, you just can't own a nuke.

Of course it is.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're directly infringing on it.

As for a nuke

1) It would be difficult to own a nuke because of radiation without infringing on other rights of your neighbors

2) The Constitution says government cannot infringe on your right, it does not say government needs to arm you

 

[Taz]

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

You need to look up the definition of "infringed" because you're clearly doing it

The right itself isn't being infringed, you still have the right to bear arms, you just can't own a nuke.

Of course it is.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're directly infringing on it

You still have the right to bear arms and nobody is saying that you can't. So no, the right is not being infringed.

But you're saying that you should be able to buy a nuke? Like anyone, even arab-Americans?

 

[kaz]

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

You do realize the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, unions, ... lobby and pay off politicians in Washington, don't you?

BTW, the NRA supports gun rights for honest citizens, not guns. We only want guns in the hands of good guys and we want them to know how to use them safely.

On the other hand, you fight for rights for bad guys. Criminals, illegal aliens, sexual predators. The worse the better for you

So you admit that the NRA pays off politicians in Washington to block legislation aimed at guns. Good for you.

Of course they do. They are protecting our rights. That's why so many of us are members and support them.

And you admit the ACLU et all pay off politicians. We're getting in sync here

 

[OldLady]

NRA issues threatening video warning journalists 'your time is running out'

The NRA is becoming a terrorist organization that uses threats and intimidation to achieve their goals. This looks more like an ISIS video than an NRA video. When will journalist begin dying?

The Putin playbook is playing out before our very eyes..

That is one hateful *****. What's scary is the true scalding hatefulness of her rhetoric, not that she might shoot me. How low have we all fallen?

 

[Taz]

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

You do realize the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, unions, ... lobby and pay off politicians in Washington, don't you?

BTW, the NRA supports gun rights for honest citizens, not guns. We only want guns in the hands of good guys and we want them to know how to use them safely.

On the other hand, you fight for rights for bad guys. Criminals, illegal aliens, sexual predators. The worse the better for you

So you admit that the NRA pays off politicians in Washington to block legislation aimed at guns. Good for you.

Of course they do. They are protecting our rights. That's why so many of us are members and support them.

And you admit the ACLU et all pay off politicians. We're getting in sync here

I couldn't find a link to something that says the ACLU pays off politicians, maybe you know of one? (Not that I even care what the ACLU does, but it would still be nice to see a link, I 'd be interested in reading that).