You’ve got him on the ropes… now go for the “Chewbacca Defense” coup de grâce!
Preventing another 9-11 Massacre is one of the government’s primary concerns. Saddam Hussein (rightly or wrongly) was often perceived as one of the instigators of that attack. Ergo, the invasion of Iraq was justified. Quod Est Delirium.
Another alternative organization: American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It even endorsed Obama for president, which may or may not be good to you, but definitely shows they are of a different mind than the NRA. Their list of values:
Bunch of pussies, is what it sounds like.
By the way you phrased the OP, CandidGamera, I assume you have an interest in gun rights and not gun control.
Therefore, I am compelled to tell you that the AHSA is an astroturfing group.
Do with that what you will.
You do know the NRA strongly opposes any and all gun registration legislation, yes?
Is that why they oppose the restriction of gun rights in New Jersey? They really suck at this!
Face it, not everyone finds gun rights and gun control at complete odds, despite what the NRA would like you to think.
If Paul Helmke of the Brady campaign publicly states “I see our issues as complementary to theirs”, there is a problem. The largest organization lobbying to limit and in some cases eliminate gun rights in the United States has these guys in bed with them, and I’m supposed to accept that there is no problem with this?
Pull someone else’s leg. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.
Considering their mandate appears to be solely limited to preserving hunting/sporting use of firearms - nothing about self-defense in there - they seem to be on the level.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you have to like them, just that they do pretty much what it says on the box.
You mean from a dealer? Private sales of handguns (whether at gun shows or elsewhere) aren’t regulated in a lot of states. Florida being one.
I guess you really are that dumb.
The Izaak Walton League? Their focus is environmental conservation, but specifically to use the environment for sporting purposes like hunting (and fishing, and hiking, etc.). They’re very much pro-hunting, so natually they tend to be pro-gun as well.
They (well… at least not my chapter) tend not to be the “gun nuts” associated with the NRA, nor are they tree-hugging environmentalists. But they are very much indeed pro-gun and pro-environmental.
Well, this is certainly true.
For example, if a guy cuts me off in traffic, and then blocks me in and flips me the bird, and finally gets out of his car to scream at me, I could follow him home, and then trail him for a few weeks to see where he shops, and what his favorite breakfast cereal is. I could then determine his schedule, and place a box of poisoned cereal on the shelf just when he has run out. When he eats the cereal, I would position myself outside his kitchen window, so I could yell out “Yes! In your face Mr. Road Rage Dude!!!”
eta: When frooty-pops are outlawed, only outlaws will have frooty-pops.
This doesn’t get any less retarded with repetition.
You could just as easily say that any of those tense situations could potentially result in your shitting your pants, and act to ban pants-shitting, and it would make just as much sense. Or, perhaps more to the point, saying this to Airman of all people is like saying that pro-choice Democrats are advocating a society where newborn babies can be killed with saline injection if their parents change their minds.
I’ve said so before, but probably not on the dope, that people who do this should be arrested for terroristic threats. Brandishing a naked, unholstered firearm is not acceptable behavior at a political event.
This is the point where we could easily descend into the hijack of how gun bans affect the availability of handguns to the criminal class and especially the subsection of the criminal class with intent to use said guns.
Balancing the scales between abuser and abused, whereas with no guns whoever’s stronger wins and that’s that.
I can’t honestly say this last fact concerns me in the slightest, and I’ve been clinically depressed in the past and had multiple friends who attempted suicide.
Look, I’m not a gun nut. I’m all for having the data, I wouldn’t mind if every gun in the country was registered on a list of who owned it, when they got it, etc, like cars. I’d be thrilled to see mandatory training and licensing, again similar to cars. My guns are locked behind two separate keyed locks, and I wouldn’t mind a requirement to make them combination locks or biometric+key if biometrics can be made as solidly reliable as they’d need to be. I’d love to see serious criminal penalties for the mere act of carrying a gun while intoxicated, and I would also love to see a law by which if your gun was stolen/transferred and you failed to report it and transfer the title, you got hit with both a felony for wrongful gun transfer AND automatically became a prima fascie accessory to any crime subsequently committed with that gun.
All this, and all I ask is that you let us legal, peaceful firearm owners–whether for self-defense, sport, or both–continue to own our firearms legally and peacefully.
Maybe I should start a PAC.
It’s weird how you throw out these hypebolic terms, but then fail to actually demonstrate in what way they’re irrational.
Having the right to defend yourself (either generally, as I mentioned with retreat in your home laws, etc or with a gun) does not need to be directly inversely correlated with the legal widespread presence of guns. The vast majority of people support laws that target criminals and criminal use of guns specifically. A gun law that restricted ownership has far more effect on you (the responsible owner) than the criminal threat you’re concerned about, disarming you without removing the threat - and because criminals obviously don’t need guns to be a threat to you. For some people, they function as an equalizer - a 100 pound woman may not have any viable way to defend herself from a 200 pound man except through the use of weapons. There seems to be an unstated assumption here that if there were laws passed against gun ownership then no one would face any threats - therefore, duh, you don’t need guns when the same law eliminates any danger to you!!!111
This is what makes it hard to have conversations with, and tolate laws being written by, people like yourself. It’s hard to have a reasonable discussion when you have such obnoxious ideas about the nature of your opponent. Imagine Obama trying to have a reasoned debate with Orly Taitz…
Oh come on - society is just about better than it’s ever been. Gun ownership rates have been going up, yet accident rates and crime rates have been on a downslope for decades. Your fantasy does not fit with reality.
Has there ever been a democratic presidential c andidate that was more pro-gun-rights than his republican opponent? That seems to be a requirement here. Otherwise should the NRA endorse a democrat that has a harsher gun control stance every once in a while just to make it seem balanced between the parties?
They didn’t “even” endorse Obama for president. They were created to endorse Obama for president. It’s a shill organization that lives up to the standard democrat divide and conquer bullshit “don’t worry, these gun bans aren’t after your duck guns!”. It was created so that democrats could say “the hunters and shooters association supports me!” It has no legitimate standing among anyone I know.
You see “women are victimized by guns”, I see “more women need to get a gun and defend themselves.”
Apparently in your mind “responsible gun owner” = “gun nut”. I pray I will never, ever, have to defend myself with one of my firearms. I’ll be perfectly happy to live out my days having shot nothing more than what I already do: paper targets and clay pigeons. But then again I’m not a gun nut, I’m just a run-of-the-mill responsible gun owner. And user.
They were founded in 2005. That’s nearly as much foresight as the people who put the fake birth announcements in Honolulu newspapers!