NRA

[BadUglyMagic]

I don't know that I have ever seen a person so completely incapable of reading comprehension as yourself. I give up on you. I can not state my position more plainly and if you can't understand it then I can not help you. The level of cognative dissonance you are displaying is staggering and I can't deal with it anymore.

You have avoided the question. Additionally, all of your prior posts appear to exhibit the same traits that you condemn the NRA's management of.

If you feel the Second Amendment or any other civil right of the Bill of Rights should be abridged or abolished, that is your right. I respect that and support your right to do so. It would be nice if you answered the question.

Yes. A bigger question is whether HJ wants to protect his civil right (and mine and yours) or feels it should be abolished. HJ, do you feel it should be abolished?

[Hooded Justice]

You have avoided the question. Additionally, all of your prior posts appear to exhibit the same traits that you condemn the NRA's management of.

Actually in my 2nd or 3rd post on this thread I stated I am pro gun. Every other post was to illustrate why I can't support the NRA as a pro gun non-conservative. As such the NRA serves 1 interest and actively supports those who oppose almost every other political ideal I hold. Some of the people the NRA heavily supports actively want to take away civil rights of americans INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! Once again in plain english which I am sure you failed in school: I Hooded Justice do hereby believe that the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the united states is a necessary and good thing which should not be held as more or less important than any other civil right granted by the constitution. And any who would seek to infringe on ANY civil right tangentally support infringing on THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as they view civil rights as able to be freely taken and given at will.

I hope that is good enough to answer your questions.

If you feel the Second Amendment or any other civil right of the Bill of Rights should be abridged or abolished, that is your right. I respect that and support your right to do so. It would be nice if you answered the question.

I would absolutely LOVE for you to show me where I ever indicated in ANY way whatsoever that I was ok with what you describe above. You know what? Don't bother.

[Devil]

As an outsider living in a country where the gun laws are very simple:
- You can carry a gun when you need it for your profession.
- sportshooters leave their weapons in a personal safe (preferably) at the shooting range
- hunters have only access to hunting type of weapons.
- semi/full-automatic assault weapons are prohibited for the general populations (civilians) to own.
- EVERY weapon/owner connection is documented.

I find this black and white view that I see on these forums weird.

I've got nothing against gun owners and 2nd amendments, NRA etc, but I believe that some weapon types should be banned from a civilezed society, to be exact the (semi/full) assault riffle and that .50 contraption that is in Gezere's avatar.

These two types of weapon have got nothing to do with:
- hunting: if you need an AR to hunt deer...start fishing as a new hobby.
- home defense: a lot of homes are made out of wood, most of the time the childrens bedroom is at the other side of the stairs than the parents bedroom. So maybe it's not a good idea to have them grab an AR when they hear a suspisios sound downstairs
- self-defense: carrying ARs in public as a legal self-defense weapon...only if your name is Salmon Rhusdie.
- sport shooting: you don't need a .50 to do some clay pigeon shooting, for clay pteradactyl shooting yes, for clay pigeon shooting no.
- defense against the goverment: The weapon of choice is called voting. Don't like the programs of the two main parties...vote on a third.

If you say that the criminals will have access to those weapons, make it simple: you get caught with an AR or a .50, it's 5 years hardtime, no parool, no time of for good behaviour and you will see that weapon dissapear also from the criminal side and from the gangs. Get caught a second time, congrats you're going away for 10 years.

If you say that the 2nd amendment garentees you from having the same weapons as your Militairy has and is a right, where do you say stop? Can your neighbour that hates your guts because your dog always shits on his lawn buy himself an Abrahams M1 Tank? Can Wallmart start selling small tactical nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?

Pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting riffles are more than enough to have in a civilized society. Leave the ARs and other (heavier) weaponry in the hands of the Militairy, who should be trained to use them and have to leave them on the base when they are on r&r. But it would be a funny sight to see the wife of an Apache pilot takes the gunship to K-Mart for her weekly shopping.

$0.02

Your views are typical of individuals who haven't fully considered what types of self-defense scenarios they may find themselves in. Numbnuts want to dictate what type of situation we should be allowed to prepare for. To people like you, civilians can't possibly need to defend themselves against anything other than a punk ass kid with a .32 in his waist band. Or against somebody trying to break into their house.

Don't be so fucking naive. You say hunting rifles, revolvers, etc are sufficient in a civilized society. But what happens when society becomes uncivilized? It happens every day somewhere in the world. It has happened on a limited scale multiple times here in the U.S.

I have semiautos for self-defense. They are legitimate self-defense weapons. So are large bore weapons like the .50. They are good for killing people if necessary. I also keep large quantities of ammo in case I need to kill large numbers of people to protect myself and my family. Have fun using your six shooter against a mob who wants to eat your food and rape your wife.

Unfortunately, your mentality has become commonplace. People who haven't seen struggle and conflict in their lifetime often fail to see how quickly their way of life can erode. They trust the government will take care of them. They think things can only get so bad and they put too much faith in the system.

People need guns that are made for combat because they may need to protect themselves from people who would do them harm. The second amendment is about maintaining the ability to kill to protect yourself. Liberal assholes want to take away the weapons that give you that ability. Fucking ignorant masochistic pansies.

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

I'm not here to tread on your civil rights, so Mtripp, Devil, Mr Machette and BadUglyMagic you can buy all the weapons of all the weapontypes you want.

[Mtripp]

As I said, when people continue to avoid the questions, then project their own problems on to me, there is little left to say.

So, I shall make the point plain. If you believe in gun rights, there is NO ONE on the left who will support your position. When you vote for the left, your vote is against gun rights. Wiggle all you wish, but the evidence is there for those honest enough to look.

In as much as the left will appoint people to the courts who will DENY my gun rights, then I must do all I can to insure they are not in power to appoint them. Because we have kept the left out of power as long as we did, we have got verdicts such as Heller. Anyone who asserts we would have Heller, or Shall Issue, et al, under a left majority court is simply not being honest.

As such, I will continue to support the only people who support me....

YouTube- Winston Churchill "Never Give In"

[BadUglyMagic]

Every other post was to illustrate why I can't support the NRA as a pro gun non-conservative.

As such the NRA serves 1 interest and actively supports those who oppose almost every other political ideal I hold.

I hope that is good enough to answer your questions.

Sort of.

I am pretty liberal/non-conservative and yet am still an NRA member. If the Second Amendment is not the number 1 interest of the NRA, what is it?

Out of curiosity, are you a member of any organization which protects the Second Amendment?

What are those other political ideals that make the NRA mutually exclusive to them? If you present compelling information, you can change my viewpoint or at least cause me to check into it. That is why I ask.

[Hooded Justice]

Sort of.

I am pretty liberal/non-conservative and yet am still an NRA member. If the Second Amendment is not the number 1 interest of the NRA, what is it?

I never said the 2nd amendment wasn't the NRA's #1 interest. The problem is that in order for them to advance their agenda they cater to a base that doesn't particularly represent me or my ideals beyond gun rights.

Out of curiosity, are you a member of any organization which protects the Second Amendment?

Nope and like with the OP that is the problem. I simply find the NRA to be too partisan politically speaking for my taste.

What are those other political ideals that make the NRA mutually exclusive to them? If you present compelling information, you can change my viewpoint or at least cause me to check into it. That is why I ask.

The NRA is so singularly focused on gun rights that it eschews care for any other civil rights in its pursuit of gun rights protection. It appears to have an "ends justify the means" mentality when it comes to gun rights and I do not support that ideology. If I did I'd be pissed that Obama didn't use signing statements and reconciliation more on the level that GWB did to get what he wants(and by extension what I want).

The difference between groups like the NRA and the ACLU is that the ACLU will help and work with people it doesn't agree with in the quest to make sure civil rights apply to all equally. I do not see that attitude in the NRA.

And again the NRA gives political and financial support to people I flat out do not agree with or want to support by any means. I have tried to show how the biggest NRA spokes people are also some of the biggest believers of civil rights of convenience.

[Shamash]

The difference between groups like the NRA and the ACLU is that the ACLU will help and work with people it doesn't agree with in the quest to make sure civil rights apply to all equally. I do not see that attitude in the NRA.

And again the NRA gives political and financial support to people I flat out do not agree with or want to support by any means. I have tried to show how the biggest NRA spokes people are also some of the biggest believers of civil rights of convenience.

I would like you clarify the bolded part. I'm not trying to be a smartass but I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the NRA doesn't want the 2nd amendment to apply equally? Could you give some examples of where the ACLU has helped people with whom they disagree with. The ACLU does not fight for the second amendment because they do not believe in it. A few years ago their website flat out stated that. I was under the impression the ACLU mainly filed lawsuits that benefited a liberal cause. For example they frequently file lawsuits regarding christian symbols, prayers, ect, but didn't object to a school in California requiring students to read the Koran.

[It is Fake]

Could you give some examples of where the ACLU has helped people with whom they disagree with. A few years ago their website flat out stated that. I was under the impression the ACLU mainly filed lawsuits that benefited a liberal cause. For example they frequently file lawsuits regarding christian symbols, prayers, ect, but didn't object to a school in California requiring students to read the Koran.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.a...nav=menu1362_2

http://www.theonion.com/articles/acl...-headqua,1648/

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/acti...t-applications

http://www.aclunebraska.org/index.ph...-for-new-trial

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38540

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_p...cond-amendment


Not trying to argue his point but, giving you some examples of what people think/feel/know is wrong.

The ACLU does not fight for the second amendment because they do not believe in it.

No, not entirely true.

They are a little grayer in that area IMO.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_p...cond-amendment

Hope this helps.

[Rivington]

I was under the impression the ACLU mainly filed lawsuits that benefited a liberal cause. For example they frequently file lawsuits regarding christian symbols, prayers, ect, but didn't object to a school in California requiring students to read the Koran.

Ah yes, nothing says "liberal" like...uh, the Koran. The case was about a course teaching about Islam as an element of culture and history. As such, it wasn't any different than learning about Constantine or the Protestant Reformation, which most every American schoolchild learns about already.

Other "liberal" causes in which the ACLU involved itself in include neo-Nazi organizations, the Westboro Baptist Church (Phelps and co.), Oliver North, the tobacco industry, and against the sort of campaign finance reform most often supported by the Democratic Party. Most of these free speech grounds (though north was a Fifth Amendment case).

Incidentally, the ACLU has positions, but doesn't just swoop in and file lawsuits—one major reason why the ACLU tends to trend left is because right-wingers facing freedom of speech issues tend not to contact the ACLU for assistance. (The ACLU does file briefs and the like when it can; it did so on behalf of Rush Limbaugh a few years ago, for example.)