I think they are a big part of the problem. They were started with a noble purpose (promoting gun safety and uniting gun enthusiasts) but since then have morphed into a pretty reactionary thoughtless organization. Because of the NRA, for example, the CDC will not collect data on gun deaths; the NRA will quickly (through well-funded politicians) cut funding for any research into the prevalence of gun violence and its effect on the overall health and safety of Americans.
<----------------------------------Ain't no NRA dude just a damned accurate marksman who started hunting pre-puberty. Certain skills are best acquired during certain stages of development. I plant trees for the next generation of wood workers. I want the next generation to have the same rights I had. I think that those who would deny the rights of others deserve none themselves.
Well said. Anyone who denies an American the right to live a full life, without the 1% probability that the cause of his death will be a bullet, should definitely have his own rights curtailed. We all grudgingly accept the 1% probability that the cause of our death will be a road accident, because cars and roads provide tremendous value in our lives--and also because cars and roads become safer with every passing year. There is no corresponding benefit to allowing people to own guns. Decades of statistics tell us that each gun is five times as likely to kill an innocent victim, than to actually be used for self-defense. Gun apologists should simply be rounded up and sent to Mars, where they can merrily shoot each other all day long and leave us the fuck alone.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Poor little innocent victim Odocoileus virginianus. Innocent? Damned things come into my garden to steal my food. When--------------BLAM ........... They drop where I shot them. So, i eat them as well as whatever they didn't steal. Had I not had the right to shoot as a child, I'd most likely not be making the clean shots I do now. .. FR You want to deny someone else the rights they have in this country? Maybe better for all if you go back to the homeland of your ancestors? If you manage to abrogate one right for someone else. Do you not then expect someone else to abrogate your rights? It is a slippery slope when you start denying the rights of the people. You are(most likely) one of the people. Are you not? Which of your rights would you like not taken away?
As long as the gun control advocates toss around bogus statistics and bs arguments like that, they cannot be trusted with State power. The authoritarian mindset is too dangerous. Most NRA members - 80% last I read - think the US badly needs better and more strict regulation of firearms. But they aren't going to hand over the power to do that to people whose brains seem to go tilt whenever they hear the word "gun".
Epimethius: "believe in" as in "I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH" Ok interlacing of science and religion?
Since the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment, it would be more appropriate if all the hoplophobes moved to some island where guns didn't exist. I suspect the IQ of the U.S would rise by 20 points.
It would only rise after all the gun nuts killed themselves or each other via accidents, homicides, suicides, etc with said guns. The US has a stupidly high gun violence rate compared to other countries. It is only inevitable that few of gun owners would be left standing if you were left to your own devices without any form of gun control. The more guns you own the more likely you are to be subject to angry outbursts that you cannot control. This conclusion about Americans and their guns comes from a study published this week in the journal Behavioral Sciences. Researchers found that some 9 percent of people in the United States have both guns and significant anger issues. "The new research also indicates that the 310 million firearms estimated to be in private hands in the United States are disproportionately owned by people who are prone to angry, impulsive behavior and have a potentially dangerous habit of keeping their guns close at hand," the Los Angeles Times reports. "That's because people owning six or more guns were more likely to fall into both of these categories than people who owned a single gun." The study, by psychology researchers from Duke, Harvard and other universities, states that "a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)." The study's findings are drawn from in-depth interviews with 5,563 Americans over the past decade. The key conclusion is that public policymakers' focus on keeping guns from those with diagnosed mental illness does little to reduce the risks posed by the high level of private gun ownership in the United States. Darwin. Evolution. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I'm sure you get the picture.
the revolt of Cincinatti the original version of the NRA was actually a supporter of gun control at least common sense versions of it in its early days. its only after it was taken over in 1977 by people who wanted free access to guns who successfully managed to rewrite what the second amendment meant over time that it became the loathsome group we know today
The Second Amendment specifically refers to a militia. The idea was that the next time the British attacked (which turned out to be less than four decades later), the citizenry could easily be organized into a defending army because many citizens owned weapons. There is absolutely no evidence in the writings of the Founding Fathers to indicate a desire for the average citizen to own a handgun, which in those days, and even today, is not the weapon of choice for a soldier in combat. Pistols were used in duels, an activity that by this time was not held in high regard and indeed was soon to be outlawed. Pistols were used by robbers and murderers--and that is still their primary deployment. The militia would be armed with rifles (with their longer range) and larger weapons like cannon--weapons that are appropriate for a military battle. The idea that a homeowner needs a handgun in order to protect his home from burglars, and his family from hopped-up rapist junkies, is nothing more than propaganda from the National Rifle Assholes. The cold hard statistics about privately-owned handguns tell us that every gun is five times as likely to kill the owner, a family member, a friend, or a confused stranger than to kill a robber or other attacker. Look up the sad story of Caleb Gordley, a teenager who was killed by his neighbor because all the houses in his tract looked alike and he sneaked into the wrong one after coming home after curfew. Perhaps you and all the other gun nuts believe that breaking curfew is an offense worthy of capital punishment, but you might want to run that past Gordley's family. Considering the wave of shootings by various types of looney-birds that has got Americans barricaded in their homes and afraid to go to the mall (my office is a short walk from Columbia Town Center in Maryland, where the Zumiez store was shot up by a gun nut, who at least had the courtesy to kill himself too), it's amazing that there are still people who insist that more guns will make us all safer! Perhaps you can just take one point from this post and try to remember it: YOUR GUN is five times as likely to kill an innocent person than to defend you from an attacker. And if you insist that you're a trained, disciplined former Army sniper who would never misuse a gun, then think about your five neighbors, who (based on statistics) probably don't even have their guns locked up so even their children can find them. Oh hell, you'd probably enjoy shooting a child and being able to tell the cops, in all honesty, that it was self defense.
as a member of the miltia for military purposes. it doesn't not provide for the individual right to own a gun for personal use. just because you believe your sides propaganda doesn't make it true. the conservative activist judges only managed to get there rewrite as law in 2008
you mean like the right to make death threats? cause you love making those who disagree with your misrepresentation of the second amendment
And he hasn't learned how to write with complete sentences. I guess he thinks that stinky pseudo-poetry style makes him look smart. It doesn't.
The Supreme Court disagrees there - and they are the ultimate authority on interpretation of the Constitution.
i mentioned that. 2008 is when they redefined the second amendment. I'm hoping a democrat wins so we can get a justices that won't rewrite the law to suit their ideology. but my point is as written there is no personal right to a gun in second amendment.
"...the security of a free state..." The point being, that the people have a right to assure their freedom, and this could be done only if the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Let us consider the purpose intended by the men who wrote the document: Tomas Jefferson, 1776 George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788 Let us consider an outside opinion: by Mahatma Gandhi Setting the 2nd aside for the moment, let us consider the 10th: Nothing in the constitution prohibits ownership of weapons by the people. Why do hoplophobes(new word for me thanx) have such a seemingly self righteous egomaniacal desire to abrogate rights that others hold dear? What makes you think that you have that right? Or, even that you are in the right?
They didn't rewrite or redefine anything. The Second Amendment hasn't changed - nor has its prohibition on gun bans changed. "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." Pretty clear that those things shall not be infringed.
That's not how the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment, and at the end of the day it is their opinion that matters, not yours. If you don't like it, well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I'm a big fan of judging a person's motives by what they do, rather than what they say. For example, gun control advocates act as though they are humanitarians, only wanting to restrict peoples rights for the well-being of everyone. However, whenever there is a tragedy involving a firearm, you can bet your bottom dollar that these same people will use this tragedy to push their political agenda. Or even worse, they will actually be gloating and chortling their ass off. They will never miss an opportunity to ridicule someone who *gasp* owns a gun, and is responsible with it. How do you deal with such people and their ridicule and emotional blackmail? You could engage them in debate, and waste your time in a point-counterpoint battle of attrition, but we all know that zealots and control freaks thrive on this. The solution is actually real simple: You tell them to buzz off, and continue doing whatever it is they are trying to stop you from doing. Former Police Chief Mark Kessler did just that. He told the libtards to go and pound sound, and then proceeded to fire his *gasp* automatic rifles. The video can be found here: Oooohhh, I still remember the whining and crying from the liberal crybabies. "He... he... he... used bad words *sniff sniff* and... and... fired a gun into empty space. He's dangerous! Pl... pplll... ease stop this man. Waaaaa...." All he did was tell people to mind their own business, and then fired a gun (which is his constitutional right), and libtards went crazy.
