NRA Calls 'Open Carry' Rallies Scary and "Downright Weird"

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

Let's test Japans resolve and dump a bunch of MS13, Crips and Bloods on their tiny island and see how long it takes to be overrun with guns.

Japan is not America and the Japanese are not American.

They have something a little more dangerous than your average gang bangers. The Yakuza

Also it is too late for anything to be done in America as I have stated before. Just showing you what could have been done..if people treated this issue as a privilege instead of a right.

a reply to: LarryLove

Hypothetically, would not owning a gun or having the right to make you any less or more a person than you already are?

Well if we want to go hypothetical here.

Does hiding behind government writing law after law that do not work make them any more or less of a person ?

The obvious answer is LESS.

ALL LAWS limit the power of the people.

It declares the 'state' the master, the people the slave.

I don't want to wake up on day and find that only the police and the government are the only ones allowed guns.

Places like that already exist, and they are not so 'nice'.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: LDragonFire

. You stated average gun owners don't kill

They don't.

Average people don't go around killing people.

Beating a dead horse here.

Actually they do...but then they go from average to not so average.

The Rodgers kids come to mind..just your average kid..then...not so much. How about all the spree killers...just your average American...then not so much.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

So you and the other idiot have no issues with the gun massacres?

Why should I ?

I and 330 + million other Americans didn't do anything 'against' the law.

So why the hell should we pay for it ?

Besides there is a law that says 'people can't kill people'.

I would pull my support for NRA too. Calling people weird for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights is wrong.

a reply to: neo96

Texas would considered a gun advocates gun Utopia..so tell me all those guns..does killing stop?

How about their gung ho death penalty..has it stopped killing there?

Guess what....killing is going to happen no matter what...don't you think it would be nice to stop the insane people from owning a tool that helps them kill mulitple people at a time?

So maybe make it harder for them.

a reply to: neo96

So you are basing your response on my hypothetical question to that of self-defence in its purest and rawest form. I am willing to wager that neither of us are going to end up in this one-armed society you describe. It won't and can't happen. The problem with ATS is that (and me included on occasion) wear conspiratorial blinkers that prevent us from discerning fact from fiction — we feed off all the other conspiratorial crap and don't see the wood for the trees. Gun ownership is perhaps the smelliest part of the crap. Made worse because people talk about defending guns as they would their own deities.

Edit: that is a 'god' and a book of magic tricks and an inanimate object — what is weirder?

a reply to: Onslaught2996


You are totting on about citizens killing each other? There are crazy people everywhere.. Funny thing about crazy people, you do not have to look much further than your down government... They have killed more people than all crazy citizens with guns ever did and ever will crazy or not..

On the subject on this, There is a town in the states that requires households to own a fire arm.. I wonder why that town isnt on the news every 3 seconds with reports of crazy people shooting everyone...

Just saying..

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

Just saying though.. These stats seem off compared to what is said.. You should show me Chicago's stats or something.. You know wit no guns there should be no deaths from guns at all..

originally posted by: Echo007
I would pull my support for NRA too. Calling people weird for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights is wrong.

No 'right' only ego is being exercised in these protests. And it is weird to parade around with a weapon as though it an extension of your family or person. I will defend your right to bear arms, but not moronic behaviour designed to provoke and clearly born from the ego.

Just a reminder: The NRA has retracted their statement. They think the people of America open carrying their AK-47s is the patriotic thing to do! LOL!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Forever talking showing no proof..

Why is this funny? its like those damn hippies the cops like to mace and throw tear gas canisters at eh?

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Guess what....killing is going to happen no matter what...don't you think it would be nice to stop the insane people from owning a tool that helps them kill mulitple people at a time?

Sure enough killing is going to happen no matter what.

Because WE CAN NOT LEGISLATE human behavior.

People been killing people since the days of sticks, and stones,

Then they moved up to swords, and knives, and maces, and battle axes.

Then they moved up to the bow, and arrow.

Then one day the gun was created which is the new kid on the block.

Looking back at that era of 'civilization' the gun has killed the least amount.

But then again people kill people, and they will use whatever is available.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic The extremist gun rights advocates who are carrying their guns everywhere they go are pretty damn scary and weird, IMO.

agreed.

a reply to: LarryLove

Gun ownership is perhaps the smelliest part of the crap. Made worse because people talk about defending guns as they would their own deities.

People make it worse by defying government as the solution to all our woes.

There is no problem LAWS can't solve.

And to date.

Not a single GD LAW HAS STOPPED anything.

It only punishes after the fact, and they punish those of us who do nothing at all.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

GUN CONTROL AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT myths

MYTH: A decrease in crime in Kennesaw, Georgia after it passed a law which required people to keep a firearm in their homes shows that guns reduce crime.

TRUTH: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig explain, "The case of Kennesaw, Georgia, which adopted an ordinance in 1982 requiring every household to keep a gun, has been prominent. There have been several published analyses of the burglary trends in Kennesaw around the time of the ordinance, with contradictory results. In any event, this is not a good test of the deterrence hypothesis, since the ordinance was purely symbolic. Most homes in Kennesaw already had a gun before the ordinance, and it seems unlikely the ordinance had any effect on prevalence since there was no penalty specified in the law for refusal to comply." ("Guns and Burglary", Evaluating Gun Policy, pages 81-82) The gun ownership rate of Kennesaw could have actually decreased because there has been a big increase in the population of Kennesaw since 1982, and it's not certain how many of the new residents abide by the ordinance. Nationwide the gun ownership rate has decreased according to the General Social Survey. So if Kennesaw has followed nationwide trends the gun ownership rate in Kennesaw would have also declined.

The Myth of Kennesaw

The Evidence:
First, the ordinance passed in Kennesaw was purely symbolic; it's not as if police went door-to-door to ensure every head of household owned a gun. Second, when one actually performs a statistical analysis (see graph), one finds there was a slight, though statistically insignificant, increase in burglaries after the ordinance.

a reply to: neo96

So, based on that you should be granted whatever device you feel deserved to continue the killing? Does it become a question of efficiency because the gun is 'the new killing tool on the block?'

The NRA has long been a zealous advocate for gun owners' rights.

BULL.ROAR
The NRA is one of the most compromising and flexible of any of the prominent "civil rights" defense organuzations in the USA. This is the group which half-assed over the Brady Bill, then buckled. This is the group that usually stays just a couple of inches behind the left's constantly moving goalposts, allowing many of the anti-2nd amendment policies to be ushered in, just a tad bit slower than the left is pushing for.

Anyone the NRA calls "extremist" is clearly doing something right and has a true understanding of "Shall not be infringed."

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Also guess what the crime there before was never significant..so basically they changed nothing..

Taking guns away from the people would make us more dependant on the government to protect ourselves, giving them more power....I am against that. We should have guns to protect our selves. The crooks will always have guns.

Now we should be focusing on a reasonable way to keep the guns out of the hands of the people who are a little compromised instead of fighting amongst ourselves. This should be set up at a local level. In many communities around here it is illegal to be taking an exposed gun into public places. That does not restrict our rights to bear arms, it just addresses issues that make people uncomfortable in the community. It keeps people from fearing others.

This is the UP. We have lots of hunters up here and many people who have guns. Many are passed on from our parents and grandparents, they are a symbol of tradition. Many people just keep the guns for sentimental values, not choosing to hunt anymore. It is important to know if something happens we can go into the woods and provide food for our families also. There are more deer living in the UP than humans.

Now, I think the people flashing these guns in public are just trying to make a statement but they are going to cause a risk for our right to bear arms if they keep doing this. It's down in Texas though, so I don't care, I'll just stay away from Texas. I'm a Yooper anyway, not a Texan, they are known for their cattle, we are known for our deer.

I do have an issue with people doing this kind of thing, how can they think that their actions are good for the cause of having the right to bear arms. If sixty seven percent of the people in the US decide that these people causing them to fear going to the store are a problem they might vote to rescind our right to bear arms. It will be legal to do that if enough people are convinced that these people are not right. Then we lose our right to bear arms.

Less than half of our citizens own guns, and some of the people who own guns would give up their rights if a bunch of people were doing things like taking fake assault rifles into stores. I call them fake assault rifles because any old gun in the hands of a person who is a good shot can out preform those guns...with one shot needed. They do not intimidate me at all. All guns are weapons.

I just don't want to see a slip in people supporting our right to bear arms in this country.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: LarryLove

Gun ownership is perhaps the smelliest part of the crap. Made worse because people talk about defending guns as they would their own deities.

People make it worse by defying government as the solution to all our woes.

There is no problem LAWS can't solve.

And to date.

Not a single GD LAW HAS STOPPED anything.

It only punishes after the fact, and they punish those of us who do nothing at all.

But if people were to quit blaming everything on Aliens to the government to the pet hamster and take accountability for their own actions, we might see real change. And then maybe the Book of Tricks and Smith and Wesson can be confined to a war-lust past.