There have been more than 150 mass shootings in the United States. All but three were committed by men. Is it time for masculinity to enter the gun debate?
By Nicki DeMarco, Erin Patrick O'Connor and Sarah Hashemi
It's the child access prevention laws that I'm most interested in at this point. It seems a no-brainer to require gun owners to safely lock up the guns unloaded and separate from the ammo, but it still gets a lot of pushback. Good to see the evidence suggests it does reduce child deaths (and injuries too, I would assume).
Law in Sweden to keep guns in approved gun cabinets.
Never hear of children getting accidently shot here. Or getting hold of guns.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
I was told by an NRA card carrying member that every legal gun buyer starts out “responsible” and every gun begins as a legal one. The NRA doesn’t believe there should be limits to the number or types of firearms an individual can possess. They shill for the firearms industry, not “responsibility.”
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
I was told by an NRA card carrying member that every legal gun buyer starts out “responsible” and every gun begins as a legal one. The NRA doesn’t believe there should be limits to the number or types of firearms an individual can possess. They shill for the firearms industry, not “responsibility.”
This guy broke the law and the NRA won't defend that.
Every driver starts out a "responsible" driver until they are not.
Every parent starts off as a "responsible" parent until they aren't.
You can argue the case that someone is responsible until they aren't for just about anything.
Again, since you missed it, the person was committing felonies. There is nothing responsible about that and you put all the actual responsible gun owners in one spot.
Every republican must be a racist and every democrat must want to give away free things, eh?
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
I was told by an NRA card carrying member that every legal gun buyer starts out “responsible” and every gun begins as a legal one. The NRA doesn’t believe there should be limits to the number or types of firearms an individual can possess. They shill for the firearms industry, not “responsibility.”
This guy broke the law and the NRA won't defend that.
Every driver starts out a "responsible" driver until they are not.
Every parent starts off as a "responsible" parent until they aren't.
You can argue the case that someone is responsible until they aren't for just about anything.
Again, since you missed it, the person was committing felonies. There is nothing responsible about that and you put all the actual responsible gun owners in one spot.
Every republican must be a racist and every democrat must want to give away free things, eh?
To your last sentence, until they do or expose themselves as such. Car drivers and parents of kids generally are held accountable and there’s been a whole industry of legislation and changes that have taken place, and continue to do so, in an effort to protect the innocents. With guns, not so much.
So you’re okay with an individual amassing 1,000 guns, eh?
Where’s the NRA on gun printing? Because that’ll make us safer. Think of the convenience! Why go to a gun store when you can go to the ritzy part of LA, nice neighborhood and buy from the “responsible” gun owner?
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
I was told by an NRA card carrying member that every legal gun buyer starts out “responsible” and every gun begins as a legal one. The NRA doesn’t believe there should be limits to the number or types of firearms an individual can possess. They shill for the firearms industry, not “responsibility.”
This guy broke the law and the NRA won't defend that.
Every driver starts out a "responsible" driver until they are not.
Every parent starts off as a "responsible" parent until they aren't.
You can argue the case that someone is responsible until they aren't for just about anything.
Again, since you missed it, the person was committing felonies. There is nothing responsible about that and you put all the actual responsible gun owners in one spot.
Every republican must be a racist and every democrat must want to give away free things, eh?
To your last sentence, until they do or expose themselves as such. Car drivers and parents of kids generally are held accountable and there’s been a whole industry of legislation and changes that have taken place, and continue to do so, in an effort to protect the innocents. With guns, not so much.
So you’re okay with an individual amassing 1,000 guns, eh?
Where’s the NRA on gun printing? Because that’ll make us safer. Think of the convenience! Why go to a gun store when you can go to the ritzy part of LA, nice neighborhood and buy from the “responsible” gun owner?
I am actually ok w owning 1000 guns if you want. I think it's crazy but if you want that many then fine.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?
How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?
How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.
While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter). You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic. It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above. Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again. Maybe take a nap or something? I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?
How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.
While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter). You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic. It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above. Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again. Maybe take a nap or something? I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.
Thank you for leading by example. XOXO
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?
How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.
While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter). You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic. It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above. Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again. Maybe take a nap or something? I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Of course they can...and they do. The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern. Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds. Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Yes. Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe. What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems. Toronto has quite the gun problem now. My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Yes. Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe. What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems. Toronto has quite the gun problem now. My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.
In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.
But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.
And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Yes. Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe. What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems. Toronto has quite the gun problem now. My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.
In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.
But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.
And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada.
Stop being dense. Just because you didn’t understand what I was saying and choose to stick with the narrative in your head doesn’t make it true...but I’m betting this isn’t the first time you’ve heard that.
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible? That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day.
The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him. He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.
The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it.
I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line. Apparently that is true. That's crazy.
Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold. When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties). With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want. If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?
Yes. Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe. What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems. Toronto has quite the gun problem now. My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.
In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.
But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.
And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada.
Stop being dense. Just because you didn’t understand what I was saying and choose to stick with the narrative in your head doesn’t make it true...but I’m betting this isn’t the first time you’ve heard that.
Okey. George Lucas.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol
Remember you can only use one at a time.
I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.
Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol
Remember you can only use one at a time.
I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.
I've managed to use two but they were both pistols. No images available...
Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol
Remember you can only use one at a time.
I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.
Explain to me how someone could fire three of four separate firearms at that same time.
Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol
Remember you can only use one at a time.
I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.
I've managed to use two but they were both pistols. No images available...
Did that in GoldenEye.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
Never hear of children getting accidently shot here. Or getting hold of guns.
https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA
I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why would the NRA defend this person? That just doesn't make sense...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Every driver starts out a "responsible" driver until they are not.
Every parent starts off as a "responsible" parent until they aren't.
You can argue the case that someone is responsible until they aren't for just about anything.
Again, since you missed it, the person was committing felonies. There is nothing responsible about that and you put all the actual responsible gun owners in one spot.
Every republican must be a racist and every democrat must want to give away free things, eh?
So you’re okay with an individual amassing 1,000 guns, eh?
Where’s the NRA on gun printing? Because that’ll make us safer. Think of the convenience! Why go to a gun store when you can go to the ritzy part of LA, nice neighborhood and buy from the “responsible” gun owner?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Most people own more than one gun anyways.
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”. The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away.
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.
How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.
I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.
TY
But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.
And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©