NRA

[Freak Out]

I have a neighbor who is the classic Alaska survivalist...loads of guns and ammo..canned goods and rations out at the cabin, hates liberals...other than that he is a nice guy...anyway he was telling me that Obama was destroying ammunition and passing laws that would limit brass recycling and was the cause of the ammo "shortage" in America. I tried to tell him that there was a shortage because wackos like him made a huge run on guns and ammo before, during and after the election and that we were still fighting two wars.....of course he would have none of it.

I have heard numbers from gun dealers that sales were up at least 45 percent nationwide and have stayed high even after the election.

[3irty1]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

The US agrees that there is a limit to what guns the normal Joe should be able to buy and own. Where do you draw the line? Right now that line is drawn at fully automatic weapons. These are the weapons that you can hold down the trigger and shoot a lot of bullets in very short time. We do allow semi-automatic guns that shoot each time you pull the trigger without having to be manually cock it. Guns have to be put into these categories. Assault rifles might look scary but if its not fully automatic its no more dangerous than a typical gun used for hunting.

[bobblehead]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

I guess I could just say that no one has ever come close to a reasonable explanation why I can't have these guns.

I could also ask why liberals are cool with Iran having nuclear weapons, but don't want me to have an assault weapon.

I could point out that Hitler came in, disarmed the population, then killed all the jews when they couldn't defend themselves.

I could say that the entire reason we have the right to weapons is so, if necessary, we can rise up and fight an overreaching government and in order to do this we need more than a six shooting revolver.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't consider any of those "reasonable" so I guess I revert to that document, The Constitution, that says you don't get to tell me NOT to have a weapon even if you don't think I NEED it.

Edit: I can think of a lot of things you don't NEED. Alcohol. Free health care that someone else pays for. Shoes and socks.

I guess I would ask you why I should have to convince you or anyone else that I need something that I want...something that makes me feel really safe in my home. I think you should convince me why anyone NEEDS to drive a car when bicycles will get you from A to B, otherwise we should outlaw them...global warming and all. GW is a threat to humanity, guns in the wrong hands is a threat to a few people. We should outlaw cars long before we outlaw guns.

[swede]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

[mraynrand]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

Me too. The most influential events were, in order

1) The debate over Affirmative Action in California
2) University professor gloating over having Boxer and Feinstein as Senators, because they were women and didn't have much else of substance to offer (For the record, I voted for Feinstein over Huffington, but voted for Hershenshon over Boxer - OY!)
3) Murphy Brown 'debate.' I argued that all things being equal, being raised by a married father and mother was preferable to being raised by single Mom. INtelligent friend pointed out that less than 20,000 years ago, humans lived in collective tribes, so there was no 'ideal' living situation. Another friend pointed out he had been raised by his mother and so I didn't know what I was talking about. He didn't talk to me for a month. Another pointed out that Dan Quayle - was a 'fucking moron.'
4) Reading 'The Agenda' by Woodward. Clinton was the ultimate pragmatist - and a man who wanted to be liked/adulated more than anything else. Policy decisions seemed to follow the polling winds.
5) The 2000 Presidential election. First encountered Chris Matthews and other cable TV personalities. Tried to grasp how anyone could think the election was stolen. Realized that Al Gore was insane. Finally dawned on me that people who had distinct ideologies viewed everything through their own prism, picking and choosing only facts or opinion that supported their POV. Bad enough from the conservatives, but out of control from the liberals, including, I realized in full glory for the first time, almost every single ostensibly 'neutral' TV news anchor. Charlie Rose and McNeil/Lehrer seemed the only sane folks in the mix. Recognized liberals in all their glory pretty much for the first time.

[Little Whiskey]

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

[Little Whiskey]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

PIP, have you read any other posts in this thread? the explanations have been posted many times. you've never once replied to any of them, yet you keep asking the same question.

[Patler]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.

[GrnBay007]

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

LOL!



Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table.

[mraynrand]

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

LOL!



Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table.

I think the varmint is in the kettle in the middle of the table. Damn, nothing says 'thanksgiving' like a big 'ole bag of Doritos.

[Little Whiskey]

LOL!


Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table.

still cooking.

Notice Grandma Whiskey the matriarch with the sniper rifle! even with the peg leg and twiches she is still a crack shot!

[Little Whiskey]

Damn, nothing says 'thanksgiving' like a big 'ole bag of Doritos.

you forgot to mention the big o jug of grape cool-aid.

[mraynrand]

I'm surprised that they seem to have drywall up. Where's the partiarch? Must be out taking a few morning shots at the Hatfields.

[Little Whiskey]

I'm surprised that they seem to have drywall up. Where's the partiarch? Must be out taking a few morning shots at the Hatfields.

he is running the camera.

we just added this wing on to the trailer. We couldn't find any of the dark-wood paneling from the neighbors, so we decided to class up the place with drywall. first one in the county.

[packinpatland]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.