This Texas Gun Owner Has Been An NRA Member For 46 Years. Now He’s Speaking Out.

[OKTexas]

Pesky Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why didn't the founders also pontificate about automobile and aviation amendments? Because they didn't know jack shit about them. They only wrote about what they knew at the time.

And if you had more than two brain cells to rub together you would have read where the Supreme Court ruled that you could outlaw a sawed off shotgun because it had "no foreseeable military purpose". So the Supreme's realized that the 2nd is about military weapons.

Yet they were used very effectively by tunnel rats in Vietnam. Go figure.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pure troll thread. Nobody was ever going to take gun rights away. Its in the constitution. God some folk in this nation are beyond stupid. No wonder our wages are so ungodly low. Why pay an inferior thinker? I laugh at those inbreds.

If wages were so low how can people afford guns?


.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sanity and soundness are not concepts to which most gun rights advocates relate. They only see doomsday scenarios from a "what if" frame of mind.

Yeah, I bet you have car and home insurance for the same reason.

Actually, I don't at all have them for the same reasons:

• Car insurance --> required by the city in which I live.
• Homeowner's insurance --> required by the terms of the partnership in which I'm a general partner.

The thing is that my insurance policies can't kill anyone in the course of protecting me.

 

[Blackrook]

“It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Bernie Phillip is a 75-year-old Texas grandfather who owns nearly 20 guns ― enough, he says, “to take care of business.” He’s an avid hunter, and has been a National Rifle Association member for 46 years.

But this week, for the first time in his life, Phillip broke with the gun-rights group. He wrote to his state representative urging him to oppose two bills that would loosen restrictions on guns. HB 375 would allow Texans to carry a gun without a permit or license, and HB 560 get rid of gun-free zones, including schools, for people with a license to carry.

“I’m all for our 2nd Amendment rights but these two bills are downright irresponsible,” Phillip wrote in the letter, which has since gone viral on the internet. “I pride myself on gun safety and being a responsible gun owner. Neither of these bills further the cause of making our great state safer for my 5-year-old granddaughter. The thought of another parent being able to carry a gun in my granddaughter’s school when she goes to kindergarten next year is terrifying. There’s just no need for that.”

”It’s insane, no doubt about it,” Phillip said in an interview. “It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Phillip said he’s discussed the legislation with his hunting buddies, also NRA members. “They’ve said, ‘Oh yeah, that’s ridiculous,’” he said.

Phillip’s daughter, Tricia Gronnevik, who said she was raised to respect gun rights, next week will go to Austin to lobby against the bills with Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, a gun-safety advocacy group. Phillip won’t travel with her because of physical limitation, but asked his daughter to hand-deliver his letter to his state representative.

“Back when he joined the NRA, it was more of a gun-safety, sportsman organization, and so my dad still has that mentality,” Gronnevik said. “He doesn’t go online, he doesn’t even have an email address.

More: This Texas Gun Owner Has Been An NRA Member For 46 Years. Now He’s Speaking Out.

Amen! I left the NRA when it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

Lakhota, I guess you haven't noticed that the vast majority of mass shootings have occurred in schools and other so-called "gun free" zones.

 

[initforme]

As I said inferior dummies.....

 

[OKTexas]

Sanity and soundness are not concepts to which most gun rights advocates relate. They only see doomsday scenarios from a "what if" frame of mind.

Yeah, I bet you have car and home insurance for the same reason.

Actually, I don't at all have them for the same reasons:

• Car insurance --> required by the city in which I live.
• Homeowner's insurance --> required by the terms of the partnership in which I'm a general partner.

The thing is that my insurance policies can't kill anyone in the course of protecting me.

And neither can prevent your being killed either, guns are used about 2 million times a year to do just that and there's no premiums required.

 

[bodecea]

“It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Bernie Phillip is a 75-year-old Texas grandfather who owns nearly 20 guns ― enough, he says, “to take care of business.” He’s an avid hunter, and has been a National Rifle Association member for 46 years.

But this week, for the first time in his life, Phillip broke with the gun-rights group. He wrote to his state representative urging him to oppose two bills that would loosen restrictions on guns. HB 375 would allow Texans to carry a gun without a permit or license, and HB 560 get rid of gun-free zones, including schools, for people with a license to carry.

“I’m all for our 2nd Amendment rights but these two bills are downright irresponsible,” Phillip wrote in the letter, which has since gone viral on the internet. “I pride myself on gun safety and being a responsible gun owner. Neither of these bills further the cause of making our great state safer for my 5-year-old granddaughter. The thought of another parent being able to carry a gun in my granddaughter’s school when she goes to kindergarten next year is terrifying. There’s just no need for that.”

”It’s insane, no doubt about it,” Phillip said in an interview. “It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Phillip said he’s discussed the legislation with his hunting buddies, also NRA members. “They’ve said, ‘Oh yeah, that’s ridiculous,’” he said.

Phillip’s daughter, Tricia Gronnevik, who said she was raised to respect gun rights, next week will go to Austin to lobby against the bills with Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, a gun-safety advocacy group. Phillip won’t travel with her because of physical limitation, but asked his daughter to hand-deliver his letter to his state representative.

“Back when he joined the NRA, it was more of a gun-safety, sportsman organization, and so my dad still has that mentality,” Gronnevik said. “He doesn’t go online, he doesn’t even have an email address.

More: This Texas Gun Owner Has Been An NRA Member For 46 Years. Now He’s Speaking Out.

Amen! I left the NRA when it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

No! No! No! Let Texans carry guns...the bigger the better.....you can tell they already envy Chicago.

 

[bodecea]

“It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Bernie Phillip is a 75-year-old Texas grandfather who owns nearly 20 guns ― enough, he says, “to take care of business.” He’s an avid hunter, and has been a National Rifle Association member for 46 years.

But this week, for the first time in his life, Phillip broke with the gun-rights group. He wrote to his state representative urging him to oppose two bills that would loosen restrictions on guns. HB 375 would allow Texans to carry a gun without a permit or license, and HB 560 get rid of gun-free zones, including schools, for people with a license to carry.

“I’m all for our 2nd Amendment rights but these two bills are downright irresponsible,” Phillip wrote in the letter, which has since gone viral on the internet. “I pride myself on gun safety and being a responsible gun owner. Neither of these bills further the cause of making our great state safer for my 5-year-old granddaughter. The thought of another parent being able to carry a gun in my granddaughter’s school when she goes to kindergarten next year is terrifying. There’s just no need for that.”

”It’s insane, no doubt about it,” Phillip said in an interview. “It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Phillip said he’s discussed the legislation with his hunting buddies, also NRA members. “They’ve said, ‘Oh yeah, that’s ridiculous,’” he said.

Phillip’s daughter, Tricia Gronnevik, who said she was raised to respect gun rights, next week will go to Austin to lobby against the bills with Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, a gun-safety advocacy group. Phillip won’t travel with her because of physical limitation, but asked his daughter to hand-deliver his letter to his state representative.

“Back when he joined the NRA, it was more of a gun-safety, sportsman organization, and so my dad still has that mentality,” Gronnevik said. “He doesn’t go online, he doesn’t even have an email address.

More: This Texas Gun Owner Has Been An NRA Member For 46 Years. Now He’s Speaking Out.

Amen! I left the NRA when it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

Lakhota, I guess you haven't noticed that the vast majority of mass shootings have occurred in schools and other so-called "gun free" zones.

And nobody cares anymore....it's the normal state of affairs in America now.

 

[Lakhota]

Pesky Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why didn't the founders also pontificate about automobile and aviation amendments? Because they didn't know jack shit about them. They only wrote about what they knew at the time.

Pfui.

Freedom of speech did not include vulgar language. Does that mean that anyone who uses any of a number of swear words is not protected by the Free Speech? Satanism, Wicca, and a number of other religions were not protected by Freedom of Religion when it was passed.

Cruel and Unusual punishment did not prohibit floggings, but it does today.

So are you comfortable with going back to the original intent, the original standards applied to those freedoms with all the Rights, or just the Second Amendment?

I'm sure the founders would have objected to a number of the Rights we accept as protected today. Unless you think that the founders foresaw the right to an Abortion and intended it to be protected.

Because when the Constitution was written, private citizens could purchase cannon. I mean big powerful cannons, far more powerful than anything you could buy in a store today. We had privateers, ships that were privately owned, with privately owned cannons, that raided on enemy commerce.

So the idea that the Founders only intended the 2nd amendment to apply to flint lock rifles is laughable. So if you want to go with only that which was available at the time, then say goodbye to the Interenet, because it didn't exist and freedom of speech does not apply.

Television was not imagined, so all televised news reports must be stopped because Freedom of the Press does not apply to spoken words. The photograph is also not protected, but sketches and paintings are approved.

That's what's wrong with your asinine argument. No founders imagined that Playboy and Penthouse would wrap themselves in Freedom of Speech.

Look what it's gotten us so far. Think about this for a moment. It is a crime to hire a Prostitute. But if I hire the prostitue to be an "actress" and set up some cameras, then I'm making a movie, and she is now an actress. That's perfectly legal.

So get off your asinine argument already. Unless you want to go back to the days of Printing Press being the only way for news to be distributed.

Printing presses? Words are not instruments of death - regardless of how they are distributed. How is a computer like an AR-15?

 

[SavannahMann]

Pesky Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why didn't the founders also pontificate about automobile and aviation amendments? Because they didn't know jack shit about them. They only wrote about what they knew at the time.

Pfui.

Freedom of speech did not include vulgar language. Does that mean that anyone who uses any of a number of swear words is not protected by the Free Speech? Satanism, Wicca, and a number of other religions were not protected by Freedom of Religion when it was passed.

Cruel and Unusual punishment did not prohibit floggings, but it does today.

So are you comfortable with going back to the original intent, the original standards applied to those freedoms with all the Rights, or just the Second Amendment?

I'm sure the founders would have objected to a number of the Rights we accept as protected today. Unless you think that the founders foresaw the right to an Abortion and intended it to be protected.

Because when the Constitution was written, private citizens could purchase cannon. I mean big powerful cannons, far more powerful than anything you could buy in a store today. We had privateers, ships that were privately owned, with privately owned cannons, that raided on enemy commerce.

So the idea that the Founders only intended the 2nd amendment to apply to flint lock rifles is laughable. So if you want to go with only that which was available at the time, then say goodbye to the Interenet, because it didn't exist and freedom of speech does not apply.

Television was not imagined, so all televised news reports must be stopped because Freedom of the Press does not apply to spoken words. The photograph is also not protected, but sketches and paintings are approved.

That's what's wrong with your asinine argument. No founders imagined that Playboy and Penthouse would wrap themselves in Freedom of Speech.

Look what it's gotten us so far. Think about this for a moment. It is a crime to hire a Prostitute. But if I hire the prostitue to be an "actress" and set up some cameras, then I'm making a movie, and she is now an actress. That's perfectly legal.

So get off your asinine argument already. Unless you want to go back to the days of Printing Press being the only way for news to be distributed.

Printing presses? Words are not instruments of death - regardless of how they are distributed. How is a computer like an AR-15?

Yes. There was no way for the founders to foresee the advancements in information sharing. How could they? So if we are going to go back to the "original founders intent" on one thing, we have to go back on all things don't we? You can't selectively demand adherence to the founders intent while ignoring all others can you?

You focus on one area, one amendment and demand that we adhere to what was available then. Are we to turn back the clock on only that, or go all the way rejecting all other things that were unavailable to the Founders?

People regularly walked around with Swords, I presume you would object to people wearing swords as they strode down the street.

This rifle was available in 1580. Does that mean that we can allow multiple chamber weapons?

It predates the 2nd Amendment doesn't it?

Cannon were available to the public. You could buy one. Would you object to me having a cannon that fired a 13 inch iron ball from my yard if we were neighbors? Revolutionary War Artillery - Yorktown Battlefield Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

How about hand grenades? They were also available to the public in the era. In fact, they had been around for nearly 200 years before the Revolution, much less the Constitution. Grenade - Wikipedia

Your ignorance of history is not surprising. Your hypocrisy is also not surprising. You would almost certainly start twitching and spitting in furious outrage if they brought back Flogging as a punishment Colonial Punishments

How about mandatory church attendance? It was the law, and if you were not of the religion of the only church in the county, you could go to court and file as a dissenter, but you still had to pay the church your monthly dues. Again, that was the norm.

If you committed a crime, and could not afford the fine, you could be sold into servitude to pay off your debt. Yes, indentured servitude was another term for slavery. Your children could be sold off to pay for your debts. Odd that you aren't all excited to return to these things that were common at the time of the founding of the nation. The founders allowed it. You can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. Your liberty could be taken and servitude for years to pay for your crimes.

Flogging, pillory, stocks were all normal.

Yet you only want to go back to the founders original intent on one thing. Strange isn't it? Thankfully the modern interpretation of the First Amendment gives you the right to tell me to fuck off.

 

[sartre play]

“It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Bernie Phillip is a 75-year-old Texas grandfather who owns nearly 20 guns ― enough, he says, “to take care of business.” He’s an avid hunter, and has been a National Rifle Association member for 46 years.

But this week, for the first time in his life, Phillip broke with the gun-rights group. He wrote to his state representative urging him to oppose two bills that would loosen restrictions on guns. HB 375 would allow Texans to carry a gun without a permit or license, and HB 560 get rid of gun-free zones, including schools, for people with a license to carry.

“I’m all for our 2nd Amendment rights but these two bills are downright irresponsible,” Phillip wrote in the letter, which has since gone viral on the internet. “I pride myself on gun safety and being a responsible gun owner. Neither of these bills further the cause of making our great state safer for my 5-year-old granddaughter. The thought of another parent being able to carry a gun in my granddaughter’s school when she goes to kindergarten next year is terrifying. There’s just no need for that.”

”It’s insane, no doubt about it,” Phillip said in an interview. “It’s mind-boggling they could come up with laws like that.”

Phillip said he’s discussed the legislation with his hunting buddies, also NRA members. “They’ve said, ‘Oh yeah, that’s ridiculous,’” he said.

Phillip’s daughter, Tricia Gronnevik, who said she was raised to respect gun rights, next week will go to Austin to lobby against the bills with Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, a gun-safety advocacy group. Phillip won’t travel with her because of physical limitation, but asked his daughter to hand-deliver his letter to his state representative.

“Back when he joined the NRA, it was more of a gun-safety, sportsman organization, and so my dad still has that mentality,” Gronnevik said. “He doesn’t go online, he doesn’t even have an email address.

More: This Texas Gun Owner Has Been An NRA Member For 46 Years. Now He’s Speaking Out.

Amen! I left the NRA when it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

 

[sartre play]

We quit paying our NRA dues when they went bat shit crazy. we are hunters, gun people. large ego not required.

 

[Lakhota]

We quit paying our NRA dues when they went bat shit crazy. we are hunters, gun people. large ego not required.

Me too.

 

[westwall]

Sanity and soundness are not concepts to which most gun rights advocates relate. They only see doomsday scenarios from a "what if" frame of mind.

Yeah, I bet you have car and home insurance for the same reason.

Actually, I don't at all have them for the same reasons:

• Car insurance --> required by the city in which I live.
• Homeowner's insurance --> required by the terms of the partnership in which I'm a general partner.

The thing is that my insurance policies can't kill anyone in the course of protecting me.

Correct. Nor can they save your life when someone else tries to kill you.