Author Topic: Time to renew my NRA subscription (Read 1819 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #30 on:** January 07, 2007, 06:25:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by shooter1cac
What I don't understand is how people fall for the same old BS "logic" that these folks spew.
"An assault rifle is deadly!" So is a spork from KFC if I stab you in the friggin eye with it. Plus my hands will have that lovely lemony smell from the moisty nap that comes with the spork! An assault rifle is no more deadly than any other weapon.
"Guns kill people!" No..a gun does not kill a person. You can take a gun and place it on a table and tell it to kill someone and all it does is just lie there. It'll stay on that table until it rusts away and never harm anyone. It's the person with the gun in their hand that kills people.
I know! Lets outlaw people! Then no one will get hurt!

Oh......Wait.....

BTW..I've been a member of the NRA for over 10 years.

How confident are you in your logic?

Tell you what, I disagree. So lets have a battle to the death over it, to prove your point you will be armed with a spork from KFC, I will be armed with an assault rifle.

Yeager · « **Reply #31 on:** January 07, 2007, 06:36:32 PM »

tell you what vulcan, heres a more realistic deal: lets just decide to have you two make a commitment to kill each other, first one to accomplish the task wins.

Do you get it?

stantond · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2007, 07:23:07 AM »

That's a good reminder. Much better than any reminder the NRA supplies. While I don't 100% agree with everything the NRA does, they do understand how our 'Governmental System' works and know how to exploit all it's weaknesses to support gun ownership. For that, they have earned my support.

Also, I get a chuckle everytime a liberal media type sneers at the NRA. The NRA is in several ways a true representative of the gun owning citizens in the USA. They don't ask members to vote on NRA policies or make decisions in their structure, but by serving as representatives for millions of law abiding citizens (who work enough to afford the $35.00 fee and obviously have enough money to buy guns), they serve a purpose in our Government.

I will admit, the NRA scare tactics and mail spam can be quite aggravating. I read some article (online?) that the Democrats were going to tone down their gun grabbing ways. I don't trust them. It would be refreshing to see the Democrats focus more on gay marriages and killing babies instead of guns though.

Regards,

Malta

Hap · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2007, 02:03:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stantond
It would be refreshing to see the Democrats focus more on gay marriages and killing babies instead of guns though.

I agree. And, both parties have made expiditious alliances that bewilder. Action from principle rather than expediency I favor.

At least there exists discussion rather than a rant fest.

Greetings,

hap

VermGhost · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2007, 04:42:53 AM »

http://strategosmedia.com/videos/GunControlWitness.wmv

Download and watch the video. I posted this before in a post that is buried a few pages back.

My family has always done a lot of shooting, but due to my ailing grandfatherbeing irresponsible about his duck club membership for future family to enjoy as he did, we've made the transition (or are making a transition) to doing Upland Bird Hunting or Wingshooting, trap, skeet, international bunker sporting clays, etc. I got an MEC hand loader from my dad from christmas and have already started to research formulas for doing my own 12 gauge shotshell reloading, which on the whole is cheaper than buying boxes of Winchester AA's. Eventually, and I hope not, the goverment will prohibit the purchase of ammunition, or even materials for hand loading itself, which is why I urge every one of you to investigate handloading for whatever type of cartridge you fire.

I pray to teh gods that it doesn't come to this but with liberals taking over government, and ESPECIALLY in California, us law abiding citizens might have to revert to flintlock to defend ourselves from government in the future.

Yeager, I heard Washington State has right to carry permits, or what is the deal with that?

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2007, 08:53:50 AM »

The $35 the NRA charges is a pittance. Most gun owners spend more than that on a couple of boxes of ammo or a new sling. Their firearms are 10-100 times that costly.

The democrats are making war on the second amendment.. there is no denying that. They have shown their colors and I don't expect them to change. They realize that it is alienating them from voters but I believe that they have done the research.

I believe that they know that, for the most part, the type of person who would defend the second amendment would never vote for democrats anyway... By attacking gun owners and the second amendment they lose little and consolidate their base of women and womenly men.

lazs

Yeager · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2007, 09:26:44 AM »

Yeager, I heard Washington State has right to carry permits, or what is the deal with that?
====
Yes, currently. Mine expires 8/07 and was granted to me by the local police department. It was a renewal and if memory serves me correctly, cost 35$.

When it comes to politicians all I need to know is whether they support the 2nd amendmant. If they do then chances are good we are in agreement on 90% of all other issues and I vote for them. If the do not support the 2nd amendment then I do everything I possibly can to defeat them.

lazs2 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2007, 02:19:56 PM »

yeager... that is my point... the democrats know that anyone who would support the second amendment probly would never vote for them anyway so they just go ahead and tear at the second to get the soros and brady bunch money and consolidate their hand wringing group of voters.

lazs

68Hawk · « **Reply #38 on:** January 09, 2007, 03:21:13 PM »

CpMorgan, Yeager, VermGhost,

All I can say is keep up the good work!:aok

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2007, 07:02:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hajo
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment Thomas Jefferson included it because he thought after a time that the Government would be so corrupt that every once in awhile they would have to be purged.

Gee....the man made sense over 200 years ago....guess he knew what was coming.

Jefferson was thinking that revolutions would happen every 20-30 years. It really happened 90 years later, and never since then.

VermGhost · « **Reply #40 on:** January 09, 2007, 10:34:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jefferson was thinking that revolutions would happen every 20-30 years. It really happened 90 years later, and never since then.

When they made the constitution there was no notion of people becoming career politicians. This did not happen widely until the 1840's when the basis for the two major parties began being influence by the industrialization of the north as opposed to the slow supporting lower business potential of the agrarian south. This is a divide that contributed to the civil war.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:34:13 AM »

laser... please point to something that indicated that Jefferson thought revolution would happen every 20 years.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2007, 11:29:25 AM »

Shays rebellion and whiskey rebellion.

john9001 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2007, 11:46:31 AM »

i find the reasons for the whiskey rebellion humorous, a war was fought with england over taxes, and the first thing the new american govt does is to tax whiskey to pay for the war debts.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2007, 12:48:32 PM »

You'd find it a lot less humorous when you see what they actually did. First, the farmers would make whiskey out of the excess crops they had. This served two purposes. It would generate some extra funds for when they were barely scraping past. One barrel of whiskey was worth many cart fulls of wheat and hay. And infinitely more easy to deal with, in trading, transportation and storage.

Most farmers didn't actually deal with money. They had no use for it, nor any place to trade with it. They most often used whiskey. The whiskey would often cover the costs of a bad season or harvest, if it happened.

And then the US government put a tax on it. But unlike our current tax system where the richest are taxed the most and the poorest not at all, the farmers were taxed at about double the rate of commercial whiskey makers.

How would you react?

And since Lazs knows little of US history, I'll explain what happened next. The Shay's rebellion happened in Massachusetts. This was during the articles of confederation. They were taxed and they rebelled. They tarred and feathered a few tax collectors and mainly gathered. The government and the governmental militias refused to march against them, and for good reason. A lot of the militia soldiers were farmers themselves.

So the Massachusetts governor did anything any reasonable politician would do. He hired mercenaries and sent them out against the farmers.

Pretty much the same thing happened in the early constitution days with the Whiskey Rebellion. Except now the central US government had power and decided to exercise it to prove it's authority. Washington marched out with thousands of troops against the families in western pennsylvania. Gotta love those compassionate government types...