HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NRA says...&@@&&@_@&@&&$)...

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 07:49 PM

NRA says...&@@&&@_@&@&&$))$)()(;(;;;:::;)0987%)

48 replies, 5176 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA says...&@@&&@_@&@&&$))$)()(;(;;;:::;)0987%) (Original post)
pbmus Nov 2017 OP
Hoyt Nov 2017 #1
flamin lib Nov 2017 #2
hack89 Nov 2017 #3
ClarendonDem Nov 2017 #8
shanny Nov 2017 #28
hack89 Nov 2017 #29
sharp_stick Nov 2017 #4
pbmus Nov 2017 #5
hack89 Nov 2017 #6
aeromanKC Nov 2017 #17
Hangingon Nov 2017 #37
aeromanKC Nov 2017 #42
whopis01 Nov 2017 #48
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #7
hack89 Nov 2017 #9
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #11
hack89 Nov 2017 #14
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #19
ClarendonDem Nov 2017 #10
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #12
George II Nov 2017 #13
hack89 Nov 2017 #15
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #21
hack89 Nov 2017 #25
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #34
hack89 Nov 2017 #38
WinstonSmith4740 Nov 2017 #16
hack89 Nov 2017 #27
IronLionZion Nov 2017 #18
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #20
IronLionZion Nov 2017 #23
Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #31
Xipe Totec Nov 2017 #44
tazkcmo Nov 2017 #36
avebury Nov 2017 #30
aikoaiko Nov 2017 #22
sharedvalues Nov 2017 #35
aikoaiko Nov 2017 #39
sharedvalues Nov 2017 #41
aikoaiko Nov 2017 #46
Fla_Democrat Nov 2017 #45
aikoaiko Nov 2017 #47
mahannah Nov 2017 #24
Eliot Rosewater Nov 2017 #26
sharedvalues Nov 2017 #32
LakeArenal Nov 2017 #33
guss Nov 2017 #40
colorado_ufo Nov 2017 #43

Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 07:56 PM

1. Agree 100%. Gun-strokers will counter with crud like quill pens were

used back then, citizens should be able to buy and carry many guns similar to those used by military, white wing racist militias and sympathizes need these rifles, most gunz available to gun-bumpers are semi-auto (even though they can kill plenty of people in a few seconds or minutes), and similar BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 07:57 PM

2. Yeah and we had slaves women couldn't own property.

All that's changed and even the most backward, ignorant and bigoted idiots understand it even if they don't like it.

Time the necroguniacs came to terms with the realities of modern life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 07:57 PM

3. The 2A isn't the problem

Few gun control laws are unconstitutional. AWBs, registration, magazine limits, training requirements, limits on open carry are all perfectly constitutional.

Time to stop blaming the 2A and start building popular support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:17 PM

8. Yup

 

Nothing stopping Congress from passing tougher gun control laws, other than it doesn’t want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:27 PM

28. 92% isn't enough? smh

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:31 PM

29. UBCs are a state issue.

It is questionable that the federal government can mandate them. My state has them - I think they are a good idea.

The problem with the gun control movement is they always bundle UBCs with gun bans. That is why they don't get passed. If they were to propose UBCs and leave it at that then they might pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:07 PM

4. I'm damn close

to asking for a complete ban on all semi-auto weapons. You don't need that to hunt or even defend your house.

I say this as someone who strangely really enjoys shooting in all its ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:08 PM

5. Right on....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:16 PM

6. That's the beauty of solutions divorced from reality

Anything is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:59 PM

17. If you can't hit Bambi in 7 shots

You need to get a new hobby!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aeromanKC (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:55 PM

37. I really dont see what that has to do with it.

There is this big assumption that semi-auto and automatic weapons are for poor marksMen. I have never seen any proof of it. But then, most of the people who say that really don’t seem to know much about Gus except that they want to ban them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:09 PM

42. Hey there's an idea!!

What a brilliant idea to ban assault weapons. I wonder if any other civilized sane country has had that idea..?? I think you may be on to something there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 20, 2017, 04:56 PM

48. I dont know much about Gus but I want to ban him.

I hear that guy is a real jerk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:17 PM

7. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

As I read this it means the government can call up all gun owners

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:19 PM

9. I suggest you first read Heller.

Militia service has nothing to do with gun ownership. But then it never has through out US history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:53 PM

11. they were combined in the second amendment so they must be important

I stated my opinion
militia comes first so the second part relies on the first part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:58 PM

14. So why is there no case law to that effect?

Shouldn't there be plenty of historical examples where laws actually doing that were enacted? When in our history has private gun ownership independent of militia service not been the norm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:03 PM

19. Perhaps because I haven't presented it yet to the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:26 PM

10. What part of the 2d

 

Limits gun ownership to militia members? I thought it protected the right of “the people” to own firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:54 PM

12. the milita comes first

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:56 PM

13. "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."

Without the militia, the "people" have no right to bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:59 PM

15. Said no US court ever. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:09 PM

21. Perhaps it is time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:23 PM

25. Heller won't be overturned anytime soon. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:38 PM

34. doesn't mean it can't be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:55 PM

38. The right says the same about Roe.

Been saying it for most of my life. SC takes precedence very seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 08:59 PM

16. Interpretation has always been the issue

"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."

To me, that means we not only have the right to regulate firearms, we have a constitutional mandate to do so. Others will not see that at all. I personally see absolutely NO reason for military style weapons in the hands of the public, others feel the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from an over reaching government, as opposed to a foreign invader. It's kind of like the old adage about blind men examining an elephant and describing it...one thought it was like a wall, another like a snake, etc.

This works for me:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinstonSmith4740 (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:26 PM

27. Guns are regulated

There are thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The fact that you think they need to be stricter doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:01 PM

18. "A well regulated militia" is like our National Guard or reserves

back in 1776 there was no standing army. Normal people would be called upon to serve to defend against foreign armies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:08 PM

20. What is wrong with a third line??

Having a gun commits you to be subject to a call-up to defend your country
I do not have a problem with this, do you??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:21 PM

23. Many gun owners are not the type who should be defending our country

nor would they want to. Military service requires some level of responsibility and discipline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:33 PM

31. Perhaps if they have no level of responsibility and discipline they should not have guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:26 PM

44. Its about defending the states not the country.

And I have no problem using them as cannon fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:41 PM

36. As a volunteer veteran

I have met many gun owners I would not want to serve in the military with. Many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:33 PM

30. Licensed gun ownets, regardless

of age, should be the first to be drafted for a Republican initiated war. Starting with Don Jr. and Eric Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:16 PM

22. What kind of gun is that in the poster? A variation of an M-60?




Our laws are 21st century - by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:41 PM

35. Hey OP! You don't know all the models of fancy awesome guns! (Sarcasm)

Remember, OP:

If you don't know more about gun models than any gun nut, you have NO IDEA how well they can kill people!

If it were the 80s, you'd have no right to be in favor of banning cigarettes for causing cancer unless you knew every detail of filters, menthols, brands, flavors, and tar variants. After all, you must be an EXPERT to have any valid opinion about how cigarettes/guns KILL PEOPLE.


------------------

That was sarcasm.

We should reject the pro-gun distraction that is often raised, about some detail of some gun model, whenever anyone makes an argument.

Here's all the average American needs to know:
Today's guns can kill a lot of people.
You and I don't want people killed.
Therefore, we want all guns banned, except single-shot hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:55 PM

39. Those are not shared values. Only a few extremists want to ban all guns except single shots.


It was a serious question about the gun in the poster. I can't identify it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:05 PM

41. Gun restriction values shared by the whole West except the US. And by every peace-loving American

It's only the US that is gun-crazy. And we're gun-crazy because we let our politics be overrun by money, and gun manufacturers bought the NRA and the GOP. (And also because the GOP sees gun identity politics as helpful in getting votes for billionaires.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:31 PM

46. And what other countries in the West have banned everything except single shots?



This is what you said and used the pronoun we:

Here's all the average American needs to know:
Today's guns can kill a lot of people.
You and I don't want people killed.
Therefore, we want all guns banned, except single-shot hunting rifles.




Who is we, notsosharedvalues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:31 PM

45. Looks like a M249

But I may be mistaken.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla_Democrat (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:41 PM

47. I think you're right. The handle on top is weird.


It appears to connect the detachable barrel with the rest of the gun which sort of defeats the purpose of a quick change barrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:22 PM

24. Drop the "maybe".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahannah (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:25 PM

26. +2,369,369,256,258,247

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:36 PM

32. YES. Allow single-shot hunting rifles only. Ban all other guns. Ban handguns. Ban semi-automatics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:38 PM

33. What do you expect when the NRA

Has an 18th century mind set..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 09:58 PM

40. 2nd amendment, 1st Amendmet

2nd Amendment is Held Close, Do not take my guns away!!
1st Amendment.. now, STFU and never Question the 2nd amendment and anyone who supports it.
Money and power supports one, and Money and Power destroying the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Original post)

Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:21 PM

43. What were the laws regarding car insurance in the 18th century?

Oh that's right there weren't any cars. Some things that applied then do not apply now and vice versa. It makes no sense not to regulate these high-powered weapons!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread