Boy, 11, Found Guilty Of Shooting 8-Year-Old Girl Dead Over Puppy[W:443]

[Fishking]

Evil kid does evil act and we blame the tool he used to do the evil act and try to use this evil kid as a reason to infringe on my Constitutional rights as an adult? Typical gun banner BS.

Let's ban baseball bats: A 13-year-old boy who killed another teen with a baseball bat

Wait... there's no protection for baseball bats in the Constitution like there is for guns, so why haven't we already banned them outright?

Not to be nit-picky here but there is no constitutional right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is inherent. The 2nd Amendment constrains the government from infringing on that already existing right. To me, that is a big difference. Maybe not everyone thinks the same.

 

[Soho gator]

Wow the gun nutters are in a panic. Hard data is telling them they are a dying breed and their fellow citizens are turning their backs on a culture of death. First stage is Denial then anger, grief and acceptance.

 

[Master PO]

Not to be nit-picky here but there is no constitutional right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is inherent. The 2nd Amendment constrains the government from infringing on that already existing right. To me, that is a big difference. Maybe not everyone thinks the same.

spot on!

 

[Master PO]

Wow the gun nutters are in a panic. Hard data is telling them they are a dying breed and their fellow citizens are turning their backs on a culture of death. First stage is Denial then anger, grief and acceptance.

:2razz:. i love these kind of talks of smacking people down who make claims and provide nothing for those claims, yourself is included

 

[jet57]

If course I would NOT be wrong on that. I spoke about when I was a child.. the ONLY lobbying group that spoke out for MY GUN RIGHTS was the NRA. And I was not born in the 1920's.

And yes.. the NRA lobbied for gun laws.. it still does to this day. it has lobbied for increased penalties for people using guns illegally.. increased enforcement of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons etc. \

there was no hostile takeover of the NRA.. the legislative action arm of the NRA took form because of the irrational beliefs and actions of the anti gun crowd in blaming guns for crime, and enacting or attempting to enact gun legislation that had absolutely NO effect on crime and only affected law abiding gun owners. If there was any "split" it was only in that most of the anti gun legislation was local and only affected a small portion of gun owners or only affected certain firearms (like handguns).. which again only affected a smaller percentage of gun owners. Since then however, the incremental chipping away at gun owners rights has progressed.. and the NRA has become much more united in its efforts against the anti gun crowd as the anti gun crowd as increased its efforts to ban or restrict more and more firearms.

And actually the article debunks itself.
Remember the hostile takeover in the NRA? That supposedly happened in 1977 right.

BUT here is what your article points out:




Wait.. I thought the NRA only started defending gun rights when the "libertarians" had a hostile take over in 1977.. Oopps..

So the reality was not that there was a hostile takeover.. it was a change in the NRA when they realized that gun owners were under definite threat from anti gun legislation that HAD NO chance in heck of reducing crime. That's why it BLOCKED measure in 1968.

the facts are that it was the actions of the anti gun crowd.. that pushed anti gun laws that had nothing to do with crime.. that had no possibility of helping crime, and only harassed legal gun owners, that brought about change in the NRA's lobbying.

That's the facts Jet. And that's even using your own article.

Now if we were to use the Real story of the NRA.. the factual story of the NRA.. we would include that the NRA is far from just a lobbying organization but that it spends millions of dollars on gun training of police officers and other law enforcement officials, spends millions supporting the training of civilian instructors in gun safety, millions in supporting having safe gun ranges for the use of firearms, spends millions in supporting hunters education.. and spends millions in supporting a wide variety of shooting sports. In fact the single biggest organization for firearm safety IS the NRA and its worked.. we are among the safest nations.. and yet we have the highest rate of gun ownership.

Born in the twenties you say? Then everything you've just said is negated by the article. Now what YOU left out was teh line that followed your highlighted quote:

Orth told America Riflemen magazine that while part of the law “appears unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

Since the hostile corporate takeover of the NRA, the gun crowd has done a complete 180 on gun laws and the NRA.

Your attitude here is that of an apologist over what has happened with respect to children dying by gun violence. You have offered nothing productive. You've only offered criticism over those concerned about the topic.

 

[Soho gator]

:2razz:. i love these kind of talks of smacking people down who make claims and provide nothing for those claims, yourself is included

I'm the only person here who has cited the hard data. Men are literally throwing their guns away and culturally we are embracing the evolution of Western Europe and Australia.

 

[jet57]

Not to be nit-picky here but there is no constitutional right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is inherent. The 2nd Amendment constrains the government from infringing on that already existing right. To me, that is a big difference. Maybe not everyone thinks the same.

The "right to keep and bear" did not exist in the British Empire. THAT'S why the founders made a bid deal of it. "Rights" by nature - do not exist. For instance - a bear or other natural enemy is not going to recognize what you may refer to as rights. If you miss, because you're keeping and bearing, the bear, or other natural enemy is going to kill you. "Rights" are agreed to in a social contract like the US constitution.

 

[jet57]

I'm the only person here who has cited the hard data. Men are literally throwing their guns away and culturally we are embracing the evolution of Western Europe and Australia.

I've sighted hard proof too. In this and many other threads with these people, and they are impervious to fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm the only person here who has cited the hard data. Men are literally throwing their guns away and culturally we are embracing the evolution of Western Europe and Australia.

that's complete nonsense. and if its so, why are the Bannites so desperate and so dishonest?

 

[Master PO]

I'm the only person here who has cited the hard data. Men are literally throwing their guns away and culturally we are embracing the evolution of Western Europe and Australia.

you made claims in an exchange with me, and i wanted you to provide something for that claim, you refused and deflected.

you are not the only one to do this, however it does not make a person look like they know what they are talking about

 

[TurtleDude]

I've sighted hard proof too. In this and many other threads with these people, and they are impervious to fact.

what facts have you ever posted that support your claims? your arguments are like this


1) post an incident were some moron or some criminal kills someone with a gun

2) pretend that the killer in your cited example is typical of most or many gun owners

3) demand laws that probably would not have stopped the killing you complain about need to be imposed to stop all those other people you wrongfully claim are like the killer

4) claim you aren't anti gun

 

[Soho gator]

I've sighted hard proof too. In this and many other threads with these people, and they are impervious to fact.

Sorry I missed it. But yeah with them it's La la la la la.......

 

[jet57]

Sorry I missed it. But yeah with them it's La la la la la.......

I posted an article here about how responsible the NRA used to be before the terrorists took it over.

 

[Soho gator]

you made claims in an exchange with me, and i wanted you to provide something for that claim, you refused and deflected.

you are not the only one to do this, however it does not make a person look like they know what they are talking about

See post 511. I know Google is not your friend over there but it's easily sourced in the free world.

 

[Master PO]

See post 511. I know Google is not your friend over there but it's easily sourced in the free world.

511? =TD'S post, ..when you make claims you need to provide, not direct people to go look it up...BECAUSE YOU ARGUMENTS FAILS IMMEDIATELY

 

[Soho gator]

511? =TD'S post, ..when you make claims you need to provide, not direct people to go look it up...BECAUSE YOU ARGUMENTS FAILS IMMEDIATELY

Whatever, it's right around 511. Use your fat little fingers to look it up.

 

[Master PO]

whatever, it's right around 511. Use your fat little fingers to look it up.

you know your arguments are going down, when deflection is your tool

 

[Soho gator]

you know your arguments are going down, when deflection is your tool

Edit it's 451 I knew your'd be incapable of finding it.

 

[Master PO]

edit it's 451 i knew your'd be incapable of finding it.

i should not have to go looking for your claims.

i see no correlation to gun stocks going up because guns owners are stocking up, by posting a PDF and expecting me to read through it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I posted an article here about how responsible the NRA used to be before the terrorists took it over.

can you tell us who you consider "terrorists" and why are you using that term to describe people who oppose the anti gun idiocy of the Democrat party?

 

[TurtleDude]

See post 511. I know Google is not your friend over there but it's easily sourced in the free world.

Post 511 is indeed my post. And I doubt my post proves any of your claims

 

[Fishking]

The "right to keep and bear" did not exist in the British Empire. THAT'S why the founders made a bid deal of it. "Rights" by nature - do not exist. For instance - a bear or other natural enemy is not going to recognize what you may refer to as rights. If you miss, because you're keeping and bearing, the bear, or other natural enemy is going to kill you. "Rights" are agreed to in a social contract like the US constitution.

It didn't exist because there was nothing that constrained the government from doing so.

 

[Fishking]

Wow the gun nutters are in a panic. Hard data is telling them they are a dying breed and their fellow citizens are turning their backs on a culture of death. First stage is Denial then anger, grief and acceptance.

Not going to debate the merits of your claim to a "dying breed" or not but being in the majority doesn't mean you're in the right. We have plenty of historical examples demonstrating that the majority can be very wrong.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Not to be nit-picky here but there is no constitutional right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is inherent. The 2nd Amendment constrains the government from infringing on that already existing right. To me, that is a big difference. Maybe not everyone thinks the same.

No, you're correct... except it's called a natural right. We've had numerous discussions here regarding exactly what you said, but the gun banners can't seem to get their brains around it, so we use easier terminology.

 

[Fishking]

No, you're correct... except it's called a natural right. We've had numerous discussions here regarding exactly what you said, but the gun banners can't seem to get their brains around it, so we use easier terminology.

Yes, natural right, that was the word I wanted.