NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

[ChrisC]

Democrats.org: Change that Matters








:0 Sorry, Couldn't pass it up

I knew that was coming haha

 

[MtnOyster]

It's the City and Suburban areas that vote Democrat so they can keep getting free rent,food,phones,school tuition, $$ and they will keep electing those who give them what they want..99 % of the rest of us think "she" should be in Jail... we know what and "arkansas suicide " is too

we may be 1000 miles apart but we are thinking 100% the same, I couldn't have said it better myself, I know the boys out west were against her too, after talking to the people out in the country in Colorado I was sure it would go trump but i'd forgot just how big the Denver population and some cities were, I hated it for the hunters and ranchers there when she won that state.

 

[Beendare]

....
....
In the free states we wish the government would spend more time worrying about what criminals are doing, and less time criminalizing the activities and property of law-abiding citizens, since criminals have little concern for laws.

I hate the constant fearmongering of the NRA. But they are the best game in town to prevent CA, NY, and MA from spreading to middle America.

^ great post bro....

 

[itsTyrtruion]

Just like my freedom of speech doesn't allow me to say whatever i want without consequences, I understand my right to bear arms wont allow me to buy whatever i want. As far as hunting, I dont see how that negatively affects me. or if i want a 9mm, should i get that upset about only being able to pick from 100 legal ones vs 1000 legal ones...idk.

So I get what youre saying but I think theres a grand misinterpretation of what the 1st amendment is and does, and referring to the "fire in a theater" argument lets hear from the judge that made the ruling in the early 1900's
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

That paraphrase of a paragraph in a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is often cited as justification for limiting free speech.
Here’s what Holmes actually wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

you saying something that will most likely lead to a dangerous situation is not comparable to simply possessing many firearms, or large capacity magazines.
Our freedoms are amazing but with those come side effects I believe. freedom of choice is in itself a possible dangerous thing to have. I can chose at any moment to do something wrong and hurt others. I can throw rocks at passing cars, steal candy bars from 7-11 use the gun on my hip right now and take someones life. but I know these are wrong, and I choose to not hurt others. some people however choose the other side and they should be held accountable. the answer isn't to restrict my ability to have items, because someone somewhere might use said item in a negative manner.

I respect your opinion but I think you are dead wrong, and it saddens me that you are "ok with what has been restricted" and yes, you should get upset that there are 900 9mm that you cant buy. is one more deadly that the other? does a pistol grip allow me to kill better?

California is leading the way on stupid new laws. background checks to buy ammunition starting soon.... it may not look like an outright attempt to ban everything, but if they make the hoops too difficult to jump through doesn't it end up with the same result?

 

[Shooter19802003]

So I get what youre saying but I think theres a grand misinterpretation of what the 1st amendment is and does, and referring to the "fire in a theater" argument lets hear from the judge that made the ruling in the early 1900's
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

That paraphrase of a paragraph in a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is often cited as justification for limiting free speech.
Here’s what Holmes actually wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

you saying something that will most likely lead to a dangerous situation is not comparable to simply possessing many firearms, or large capacity magazines.
Our freedoms are amazing but with those come side effects I believe. freedom of choice is in itself a possible dangerous thing to have. I can chose at any moment to do something wrong and hurt others. I can throw rocks at passing cars, steal candy bars from 7-11 use the gun on my hip right now and take someones life. but I know these are wrong, and I choose to not hurt others. some people however choose the other side and they should be held accountable. the answer isn't to restrict my ability to have items, because someone somewhere might use said item in a negative manner.

I respect your opinion but I think you are dead wrong, and it saddens me that you are "ok with what has been restricted" and yes, you should get upset that there are 900 9mm that you cant buy. is one more deadly that the other? does a pistol grip allow me to kill better?

California is leading the way on stupid new laws. background checks to buy ammunition starting soon.... it may not look like an outright attempt to ban everything, but if they make the hoops too difficult to jump through doesn't it end up with the same result?

This......well said. I have said it before....it amazes me the amount of people in America that hate freedom. They think you freedoms should be limited based on their discretion.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[Beendare]

Oblivious to the Dems agenda on gun control?


A 30 second search on YouTube "Hillary Clinton on Gun Control " turns up multiple gems along the lines of, "Who needs a gun anyway?"

Heres one where she recommends the Australian model.
[video=youtube;SvcWePEsg94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94[/video]

Edit; sorry about the pic if you happen to be eating breakfast or something...

The gov doesn't have to go to your house to confiscate.....here in Ca they do an end around; Go after the manufacturers make it hard to sell them with fees, tests, roster and laws like micro stamping. Then there is ammo....soon to be an addl fee on every ammo purchase [I think its $15] Black rifles....fugetaboutit, too much to list...the Dems have a woody for those.

 

[5MilesBack]

We can all find facts to support our cases...

There is only one fact: Every military member, President, member of Congress, and Supreme Court Justice has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. When the Supreme Court deems that infringements CAN be made, when the President and members of Congress deem that infringements can be made, then they make themselves liars, and domestic enemies of the Constitution. That's the fact.

 

[FLAK]

I live in the South and fully support the NRA. Always have, always will, on both counts.

 

[Shooter19802003]

There is only one fact: Every military member, President, member of Congress, and Supreme Court Justice has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. When the Supreme Court deems that infringements CAN be made, when the President and members of Congress deem that infringements can be made, then they make themselves liars, and domestic enemies of the Constitution. That's the fact.

+1 on that!

 

[ChrisC]

So I get what youre saying but I think theres a grand misinterpretation of what the 1st amendment is and does, and referring to the "fire in a theater" argument lets hear from the judge that made the ruling in the early 1900's
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

That paraphrase of a paragraph in a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is often cited as justification for limiting free speech.
Here’s what Holmes actually wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

you saying something that will most likely lead to a dangerous situation is not comparable to simply possessing many firearms, or large capacity magazines.
Our freedoms are amazing but with those come side effects I believe. freedom of choice is in itself a possible dangerous thing to have. I can chose at any moment to do something wrong and hurt others. I can throw rocks at passing cars, steal candy bars from 7-11 use the gun on my hip right now and take someones life. but I know these are wrong, and I choose to not hurt others. some people however choose the other side and they should be held accountable. the answer isn't to restrict my ability to have items, because someone somewhere might use said item in a negative manner.

I respect your opinion but I think you are dead wrong, and it saddens me that you are "ok with what has been restricted" and yes, you should get upset that there are 900 9mm that you cant buy. is one more deadly that the other? does a pistol grip allow me to kill better?

California is leading the way on stupid new laws. background checks to buy ammunition starting soon.... it may not look like an outright attempt to ban everything, but if they make the hoops too difficult to jump through doesn't it end up with the same result?

A couple things...i wasn't comparing the theater argument to the gun rights in the sense that they are being restricted for the same reason. I wanted to make the point that having a right as defined by the BOR doesn't mean it cant be regulated. I just chose a random example to prove that.

As for the pistol grip argument, I dont think that most of the requirements MA has is that frivolous. There are restrictions to make sure the materials can handle the heat of the explosion, making sure that it provides sufficient resistance so that a 5 year old cant accidentally pull the trigger, and that there is an indicator letting the user know there is a bullet in the chamber. I'm not saying im in fsvor of all of their regulations, but some seem like a good idea.

 

[ChrisC]

Oblivious to the The gov doesn't have to go to your house to confiscate.....here in Ca they do an end around; Go after the manufacturers make it hard to sell them with fees, tests, roster and laws like micro stamping.

Are you trying to make the argument that the state is being unreasonable to make these manufacturers of deadly weapons pass "tests" like they dont fire when dropped, or discharge more than one round per trigger pull, or have a high rate of misfire, or make it difficult to file off serial numbers?

 

[ChrisC]

There is only one fact: Every military member, President, member of Congress, and Supreme Court Justice has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. When the Supreme Court deems that infringements CAN be made, when the President and members of Congress deem that infringements can be made, then they make themselves liars, and domestic enemies of the Constitution. That's the fact.

Whether you agree or not, there are multiple interpretations to these documents. That's one of the reasons we have the supreme court. if the law was so obvious there wouldnt be a need for them, and there wouldnt be this 2A debate. But let's say that we should take the 2A exactly how it reads. Does that mean that only Militia members should own firearms. I'm not sure what constitutes a Militia these days, but if you are interpreting it literally, we should go by what it meant at the time it was written. So no women, and actually need to be somewhat organized. it would be more limiting than todays laws.

My guess is that those who wrote these documents wanted some level of ambiguity so that it could be changed over time to better fit the current needs of the country. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

 

[ericF]

ChrisC, you are trying to do mental gymnastics to make your point. The Supreme Court has already said the militia part is a perfunctory clause and not a requirement of the latter part. Regardless, even if we did agree with you and say lets only use the militia, then look up the definition at the time of the writings. Well regulated meant well prepared. The "Militia" also consisted of all able body males which is you and me. There are not multiple interpretations of the second amendment, there is only one interpretation as it was written which is backed up by many of the writings of the founding fathers. The Second Amendment is a fail safe against the government as written by people who knew the power of the government and fought for their freedom. Any other "interpretations" are people trying to re-write the constitution which you yourself said was a good thing. It comes down to freedom and personal responsibility. All of your tests above are things that are unnecessary to anybody with an ounce of responsibility. It sounds like you believe it is the governments job to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator in society instead of expecting responsibility within society.

 

[ChrisC]

ChrisC, you are trying to do mental gymnastics to make your point. The Supreme Court has already said the militia part is a perfunctory clause and not a requirement of the latter part. Regardless, even if we did agree with you and say lets only use the militia, then look up the definition at the time of the writings. Well regulated meant well prepared. The "Militia" also consisted of all able body males which is you and me. There are not multiple interpretations of the second amendment, there is only one interpretation as it was written which is backed up by many of the writings of the founding fathers. The Second Amendment is a fail safe against the government as written by people who knew the power of the government and fought for their freedom. Any other "interpretations" are people trying to re-write the constitution which you yourself said was a good thing. It comes down to freedom and personal responsibility. All of your tests above are things that are unnecessary to anybody with an ounce of responsibility. It sounds like you believe it is the governments job to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator in society instead of expecting responsibility within society.

I thought someone might say that about the militia. You (people who disagree with me, not just specifcally you) cannot pick and choose what rulings the supreme court have made in regard to 2A. I say that they have ruled that you can have regulations on 2A, and someone chimes in saying anyone not defending the constitution (as they see it) is a liar, and in their mind, was not defending It and in violation of their oath. however, when I go by what it says, specifically the militia, someone is quick to point out a ruling that the supreme court made. cant pick and choose their rulings to defend your stance.

 

[vanish]

It's the City and Suburban areas that vote Democrat so they can keep getting free rent,food,phones,school tuition, $$ and they will keep electing those who give them what they want.

Oh that is just complete hogwash. Rural areas receive more entitlements than cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?_r=0
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

 

[Molon Labe]

Until the NRA advocates against PLT (which they could end that nonsense given all the Congressmen who are in their pocket), they will never get my support.

I don't think the NRA should be fighting for PLT. BHA and other organizations have formed to fight PLT.
The NRA is strictly for protecting our 2nd amendment rights.
If they were to cater to hunters then they would be leaving behind the majority of the gun owning public...and their revenue streams.
I'm guessing there is only 10-20% of the gun owning population in the US that actually hunts...not going to spend the time to research it...sorry.

If you were a fly fishing non gun owning member of BHA and found out that they were spending your donated money to fight 2nd amendment causes in California would you be good with that?

 

[Beendare]

Are you trying to make the argument that the state is being unreasonable to make these manufacturers of deadly weapons pass "tests" like they dont fire when dropped, or discharge more than one round per trigger pull, or have a high rate of misfire, or make it difficult to file off serial numbers?

No gun owner is making the argument; "No Safety Testing"...that is not at issue.

Ca uses the "testing" as an excuse to hammer on the mnfrs. Any model changes now make the weapon "Off Roster" and cannot be sold by a dealer.....its an end around that sounds reasonable on the surface but is essentially a ban.

This becomes a whole "line drawing" thing.
The antis want zero guns as they think that will solve crime...but of course that only makes crime worse for the avg citizen. The NRA wants zero restrictions...so 30 round mags and unlimited/ unlicensed CCW is OK with them. There has to be a happy medium in there somewhere....but do you really want the Hillary's and the Nancy Pelosi's of the world deciding?

I get in these arguments with Liberal Progressives regularly...and it usually ends with me wanting to slap some sense into them. They will never admit to basic human nature; there are people out there that want what you have...and they are willing to do nasty things to get it.

 

[ChrisC]

No gun owner is making the argument; "No Safety Testing"...that is not at issue.

Ca uses the "testing" as an excuse to hammer on the mnfrs. Any model changes now make the weapon "Off Roster" and cannot be sold by a dealer.....its an end around that sounds reasonable on the surface but is essentially a ban.

This becomes a whole "line drawing" thing.
The antis want zero guns as they think that will solve crime...but of course that only makes crime worse for the avg citizen. The NRA wants zero restrictions...so 30 round mags and unlimited/ unlicensed CCW is OK with them. There has to be a happy medium in there somewhere....but do you really want the Hillary's and the Nancy Pelosi's of the world deciding?

I get in these arguments with Liberal Progressives regularly...and it usually ends with me wanting to slap some sense into them. They will never admit to basic human nature; there are people out there that want what you have...and they are willing to do nasty things to get it.

Well I'm certainly not looking to get slapped.
I agree with just about everything you said. My issue is the unwillingness of both sides to budge. I think it would be a huge mistake to remove guns altogether. huge. but I think there should be some restrictions, that's all. like you said, find a happy medium. We just unfortunately have two sides unwilling to move towards the middle.

I am not looking to get in a fight with anyone or intentionally get people worked up. nor come off as this extreme liberal...maybe I have. I just like hearing others opinions about this without them just yelling and being an a-hole, and hopefully i didnt come off as such either.

 

[5MilesBack]

My guess is that those who wrote these documents wanted some level of ambiguity so that it could be changed over time to better fit the current needs of the country. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

That would be a living Constitution, and I will shoot that notion down in a hurry. If it was meant to be a "living document" that changes with the times, there would have been no need for it in the first place. They could just legislate "as desired to better fit the current needs of the country for those particular times", until they needed them or wanted them to be changed at a later time to fit the fancy of the nation at that particular time. No Constitution would have been needed. They wrote it as a foundational document to meet ALL times.