NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    Someone explain to me how Barney Fife is going to prevent a massacre?  Barney is in the section of the school for 6th graders when the shooter is on the other side of the building shooting up the first grade.  How does the armed guard prevent that?  And at the Columbine school, there were 2 kids loaded for bear.  How is the guy who is older than dust, who hasn't had any tactical training in 40 years going to prevent them for killing people?

    And how does the armed school guard prevent the crazed lunatic with an AR-15 from shooting up the the cinema?  And when Gifford was shot, weren't there armed guards in the area?

    Armed guards in the schools?  That's crazy.  The NRA is leading the led the way to a nation where we have armed guards around 5 year olds.  Nice nation.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    In response to Newtster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Meanwhile, WDYWN and his liberal moron cohort discuss which weapons are acceptable to shoot kids.

    Hanguns? Yes

    Assault rifles? No.

     

    And they hold themselves to be so intelligent. How amusing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Newster has convinced me.  Ban handguns as well.

    Newster seems to miss the point that crazies can't be stopped.  He seems to have missed the point that a hand gun with 6 rounds will do less damge than an assault rifle with 30 or even 100 rounds.  He seems to have missed that the Ban on Assault Rifles is the compromise between banning all fire arms and banning none. Logic is always lost of Newster. 

    Hey Nutster - you're in a hallway.  On one end is a guy with a 9MM with a 6 round clip on the other end is a guy with an AR-15 with a 100 round clip.  Which way do you go?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    Ban handguns as well.

     

    We can't without a constitutional amendment. That ain't happening.



    [/QUOTE]

    Well Nutster has a problem with the concept of comprising or of gray areas.  He doesn't understand that a Ban on Assault Rifles makes people feel safer without taking away people's right to compensate for certain inadequacies with the purchase a gun.

    I feel sorry for people who have to own Assault Rifles in order to feel free.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    What a CREEP !

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    As a society, we've already drawn lines on the right bear arms.  You can own a hand-gun or a shot-gun, but not an RPG, or a chemical or biological weapon.  So the only question now is do we consider a weapon that fires several rounds per second to be over that line, and I think the majority of society would say yes.

    I still think addressing this through ammunition is a better way to go.  Every ammunition order should be subject to the same background checks as the initial gun permit.  But non-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets and shock rounds should be readily accessible.  These are actually better for self-defense - a shock round can neutralize a threat regardless of point of impact.  If a lethal round goes through an attacker's tissue without hitting bone, it may not even effect his / her shot.

    If you're a marksman or a collector, the lethality of the ammo shouldn't matter.  If you're a hunter or rancher, you probably have a rifle or a shotgun - statistically, those pose less of a threat than knives, and a fraction of the danger of handguns.  If they did fall into the wrong hands, they are difficult to conceal.

    What, really is the argument that an average citizen should have easy and unlimited access to lethal ammunition?  And is it an argument strong enough to create billions of dollars worth of new government spending on armed guards - not just for public schools (this latest incident) but for all public gathering places?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    It seems that even some conservative lawmakers were left speechless by the NRA statement today.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: NRA breaks silence, says exactly what they were anticipated to say.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Still waiting for an answer as to how the wingnuts propose to pay for the initial and ongoing costs this extra security and hardening of the schools would cost.

     

    Anyone... Beulher...Buehler...anyone....

    [/QUOTE]


    That's easy for the conservaturds: Cut class sizes. Break the union.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     

Share