It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA says "Guns for anyone, anywhere, anytime — no questions asked."

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

It would have been enough to just post this ridiculous image:



Anti religion too.. I'm not religious and have never gone to a NRA convention, but what is wrong with opening it up with a prayer for those who wish to partake?




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

They hate anything that is not exactly like them...And they accuse those people of being intolerant....

Interesting that...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80


Cause when they have a screw loose and documents to prove it, I don't want them being able buy a gun from a shop.




I'm a federally licensed firearm manufacturer and dealer so I can speak on this issue with more knowledge than most. The majority of gun owners agree with you about mentally unstable people buying guns but here's the rub:

1) Politicians don't want to touch the mental health issue with a 10-foot pole because it won't do anything to win votes and it will make them look "insensitive" once the media puts their spin on it. Who gets to decide the definition of "mentally unstable"? Are we only going to include people with a history of violence (who already can't legally buy a gun from a dealer) or are we going to include anyone on antipsychotic meds? How about anyone on antidepressants? Do you see where I'm going with this? It comes down to everyone having a different definition of "screw loose." By many people's definition, the vast majority of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have a screw loose because of the medication that allows them a sense of normalcy. Should they all be precluded from firearm ownership because they have trouble sleeping at night and sometimes get anxious when there's a lot of activity going on around them? It won't be enough to just keep that individual from buying a gun because they may live with family members so now you have to make it illegal for the family members of the "mentally unstable" person to own guns. How far out do you take it? Immediate family only? All blood relatives? All friends of that person as well? How do you make it so that person can't access guns if they really want to? The answer is: it's impossible.

2) The legal document required for every gun purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show has a question that asks "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) or OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" If a person answers yes to this question, the sale is immediately denied.

3) In most cases of homicide involving a firearm, the perpetrator is not in legal possession of the firearm. In some cases, they killed a family member and stole their gun/guns. What law do you propose to stop people from committing murder to access a gun? I would recommend making murder illegal. What law do you propose to stop people from illegally possessing a gun... oh wait.

4) It has been shown time and again that loosening of gun laws does not lead to an increase in crime. The anti-gunners mantra for a long time has been "if only there were some SENSIBLE MEASURES to prevent gun crime..." but there are already measures beyond sensible. There are countless laws on the books and they're hard as hell to keep up with. The laws are so numerous and convoluted that many law-abiding citizens accidentally violate them all the time because of the confusion caused by said laws. The BATFE can't even keep up with their own laws! If you ask 5 ATF agents the same question, you'll get 5 different answers. Gun owners are rabidly opposed to further laws because we know what will happen... it will only make life difficult for law-abiding hobbyists and won't have an effect on crime. It has happened with every other law. The laws are proposed by people who know nothing about firearms. Limits on magazine capacity and other such nonsense sound effective on the surface but they wouldn't change a damn thing.

5) Gun laws do absolutely nothing to reduce crime. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law in the course of their actions so how would an additional law change that? The anti gun crowd have preached about "blood in the streets" and the US turning into "the Wild West" thanks to the adoption of concealed carry but they were completely wrong. The anti-gun crowd has been wrong on every single issue and they use fabricated data, twisted wording, and emotional scare tactics to pander to their waning constituency. I have not seen a single anti-gun argument that stands up to knowledgeable scrutiny.
edit on 4/12/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
from the article ....

this is extremely dangerous !!!
Hillary is more dangerous than 1000 mental cases with guns !!!
Cox said Clinton would make Obama "look like an amateur" when it comes to gun control.
"Think about it: Hillary Clinton as president of the United States until 2025," Cox said. "Scared yet?

Gun control should be across the boards; what will (potentially if gains that office) her security forces be armed with? Pepper spray, stun guns, batons, trip wires, exploding cigars? If she is elected president I will now know she has sold herself into/and in league with the dark side [I am serious], much like the Catholic Church did centuries ago. This IS dangerous xuenchen. as the bad guys will always have the unregistered or illegal guns and the good guys (tax payers) are systematically being disarmed. BATFE has a black eye regarding 'Fast and Furious" (did you know they are still looking for those lost fully auto pellet rifles). They are raiding homes along the Arizona border to see if they can find one and are looking at any excuse to do so. Suspected militant veteran with PTSD, a private gun seller (perfectly legal here), local gossip, a garage sale that has some 1960 rifle relics. I can speak of this.
edit on 12-4-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

One, people should be able to buy whatever guns they want, and can afford. WHO CARES??? It's our own personal business if we own guns, how many, and what kind. Unless you break a law with said guns, using them to commit a crime, such a robbery or whatever, then people need to chill out and stop worrying about it. I frankly don't care if my neighbors own enough guns to stock a store. It's their business. If they aren't committing crimes with them, or using them unsafely, why should I care?

Two, do you honestly believe no changes have occurred in the past six years?? The military alone has changed so drastically that career soldiers are leaving earlier than they might have, just to be away from it. That is not a joke, and I KNOW it's a fact. We are a military family. I am a veteran, from a long time back, and my husband is a career soldier. The military now is literally nothing like it was ten years ago. That's a major change. Racial relations are at a new low, since he took office, and he does things all the time that make them worse, instead of trying to make them better. That's another big change. Immigration is changing as well, with Muslims coming in faster than folks from Mexico and points south, who would be more natural, being closer. Whole communities are drastically altered, and not for the better, as a result. Sharia law is used some places. That's a very big change. There are other changes as well, with executive orders being overused, rights being demolished, and on and on and on.

So, you can''t see these changes, and the NRA is somehow wrong for pointing out the facts? Well, good for the NRA. Except for that idiocy of not allowing working guns in their convention. That was flat out stupid.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: CB328

I am impressed that the NRA would be so intelligent.

Perhaps it is because Kansas just passed concealed carry without permit, what I have been advocating as not only constitutional law but, also the best solution.

I suggest we all pay close attention to that experiment which tests the very policy many people are terrified by.



Not a lot will change, except the state won't get as much revenue. Concealed carry permits have been costly in Kansas. Open carry was legal, however, and you could also carry a gun in your car with no permit, legally. I have seen folks open carry, all safe, no issues, and very friendly people. All this means is people who couldn't afford the permit costs can now conceal as well. Well, some criminals will surely be a lot more cautious. I worry more about how the police will react than how the gun carriers will behave, honestly. I can understand cops worrying, but I could see people legally carrying being looked at the wrong way, as well, and harassed by cops just because they decide to carry a gun. That's happened various other places with open carry.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: seeker1963

Oh come on seeker, any sort of regulation on gun purchasing is seen as violation of the constitution.

If the people who are against any laws what so ever had their way it would be a free for all.

I think the colors are showing both ways.


Well, alright. Free, for all. Yes, absolutely. Equal freedom for all. Restrictions mean someone has to decide who qualifies for said restriction. Who decides who is "mentally unstable" tot he point they can't own a gun? What if they decide any that disagree with the current party in control is "unstable"? Do you really not see that this could happen?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Second Amendment..."Shall not be Infringed" Seems pretty Clear to me, and now many states have finally got it too..Like Missouri www.senate.mo.gov...

No one ever saw that coming, but its a real relief for people who may have made a mistake, but never anticipated ever getting their lives truly back...It truly goes to show how great this country can be, when they stick to their Guns

edit on 12-4-2015 by SPECULUM because: More Cowbell



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I'll just say this, an armed society is a polite society.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt
Definitely more polite; never be rude to anyone/everyone that will/should be 'packing'. Two hundred years ago in this country words were enough to debate and disarm volatile issues in a forum. As this country continues to be dumbed down by the left (core educational system) what is the alternative. It is interesting that our revolution was fueled by beer and rum consumed and the taxes imposed on distillers for receiving molasses imported by the Brits (they had to pay for another war against the French). This had nothing to do with tea (just a metaphor) for Molasses taxes; no one was going to drop barrels of Rum into Boston Harbor. As they were armed and of the rebel cause (somewhat intoxicated) they organized; the rebellious congregation points were OF COURSE TAVERNS. God bless the founding fathers and the Sons of Liberty (AS were America's best tipplers that made a difference). Disarm the people first, the Left dislikes the idea of a people that can fend for or protect themselves against a larger governmental body. Do they not know Socialistic/Communism does not work as there is usually a hydra head .gov of just a few that will succume to corruption by the power they hold; become rich and neglect their constituency (it always happens look at North Korea or what is left of the CCCP/Russia). Do the Progressives not understand the first premise of the Revolutionary War (breaking the yoke of England) was to be Independent from its dictatorship?


edit on 13-4-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Ever lived (or served) in a country where they have no really, effective gun laws? Where 10 year old kids carry AK-47's, and old russian Nagant revolvers are as so common that people use them as door-stops? I have, and it makes me a little cautious to try that experiment in the US. That being said, I am typing from my office not 20 feet from my gun safe that is so full that I am going to buy another soon. Just common sense, and let's not rush to let everyone carry.

I am 52, and have never needed to have a firearm to protect myself in the US. Never.

A few times when I was in my teens I got in some fights, but nothing that required a gun. I also grew up in a major metropolitan area, so there were some bad areas. Much worse than today (lower violent crime now). I just stayed out of bad areas.

I served in the military, and was happy to have weapons when we needed them, but most of the time we didn't. I have a carry permit in my state, but only use it for hunting. I just don't see the reason to carry a gun. If the place I lived got too dangerous, I would move. If the whole country got too dangerous, I would leave.

Places in Europe and Japan have much lower murder rates than the US. They also have fewer guns. I know someone is going to say "well - they will just use knives and clubs, etc...." - but that is BS. I can outrun a knife or a club. I can't outrun a bullet.

I like to shoot, and spent about two hours yesterday in my back field shooting at targets. I like to have guns. They are fun. But I do think they should be regulated. Maybe like the right to drive, or some sort of permitting. What bugs me is that as Americans we are not willing to talk about the big questions- how many Americans are we going to allow to be killed each year for the unfetter right to keep and bear arms. It's hovering up in the thousands right now. Don't want to argue numbers, but there it is. Do we trade-off folks killed (mostly suicides, accidents, and crimes) for our easy access to keep and bear arms, or do we try to work something else out?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: olbe66

Places in Europe and Japan have much lower murder rates than the US. They also have fewer guns.


Correlation does not imply causation. The rest of your post is suspect...

The US has a crime problem, not a gun problem. There are several countries with a higher murder rate that have a very low rate of private firearm ownership.

Conversely, several countries that have firearm ownership rates nearly as high as the US have very low murder rates.

Claiming that access to guns increases the murder rate is completely false.

Even if you do own firearms like you claim (which I sincerely doubt), you are certainly not a supporter of gun rights because everything you're advocating is nonsense straight out of the anti-gunners' handbook. You say that you have a carry permit that you only use when hunting... Maryland is the only state that requires a permit to carry a non-concealed handgun while hunting so if you don't live in that state, you're not being truthful.

If you do own guns, you know that ownership is regulated. Why are you pretending that firearm ownership is a "free-for-all" in the US?


edit on 4/13/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Ok, so you come out and make some non-factual arguments and then call me a liar.




There are several countries with a higher murder rate that have a very low rate of private firearm ownership.


Name one. Not in a current war. Not a 3rd world country where there is no effective gun control.

Murder per country




Even if you do own firearms like you claim (which I sincerely doubt), you are certainly not a supporter of gun rights because everything you're advocating is nonsense straight out of the anti-gunners' handbook. You say that you have a carry permit that you only use when hunting... Maryland is the only state that requires a permit to carry a non-concealed handgun while hunting so if you don't live in that state, you're not being truthful.



Wrong Mr Gun-Law expert in all 50 states. A concealed handgun requires a permit ANYTIME in the state of PA.
From PA's web site on concealed carry:




A License to Carry Firearms is issued to carry a firearm concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth. Any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person except in his place of abode or fixed place of business without a valid and lawfully issued license commits a felony of the third degree.


Ok - now a you call me a liar. Show me your DD-214. You ever serve a day in boots? You want to talk to me about the bill of rights? How many years did you spend overseas protecting America's freedoms? ? What units?

No, I thought not. As for blindly assuming that if I don't go along with the NRA's party line (and yes, I am a member) in all things, that I am an anti-gunner, then you leave no room open for a sensible debate.

Good day.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: Answer

Ok, so you come out and make some non-factual arguments and then call me a liar.



Name one. Not in a current war. Not a 3rd world country where there is no effective gun control.

Murder per country


You may want to look closer at your own source that repeatedly makes the point: "more guns, less crime."

The following countries have a higher murder rate than the U.S. and are not war-torn:

Brazil
Panama
Bermuda
Costa Rica
Jamaica
Bahamas

I'm leaving out most of the ones that have a high murder rate because of the drug trade.

Now, since you're trying to draw a correlation between availability of guns and murder rates. These countries have an extremely large population of gun owners but a comparatively low murder rate:

Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
France
Canada
Austria
Iceland
Germany
Finland



Wrong Mr Gun-Law expert in all 50 states. A concealed handgun requires a permit ANYTIME in the state of PA.
From PA's web site on concealed carry:


I am a gun law expert in all 50 states. I have to be.

I said show me a state that requires a permit for a non-concealed handgun while hunting. Your reading comprehension is lacking.



Ok - now a you call me a liar. Show me your DD-214. You ever serve a day in boots? You want to talk to me about the bill of rights? How many years did you spend overseas protecting America's freedoms? ? What units?

No, I thought not. As for blindly assuming that if I don't go along with the NRA's party line (and yes, I am a member) in all things, that I am an anti-gunner, then you leave no room open for a sensible debate.


I never said anything about your military service so I have no idea why you're bringing up that nonsense other than to deflect and change the subject. You then automatically make an assumption that I've never been in the military... that's quite a leap, there.

You made several ignorant statements that a person who actually wants to uphold gun rights would not make. You sound like an anti-gunner parading as a "sensible gun owner." If your idea of "sensible debate" means further restrictions on the already highly-regulated firearm community, then you're right... there's no room for that sort of idiocy.
edit on 4/13/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonVoigt
I'll just say this, an armed society is a polite society.

This is why the 'long barreled colt 45 pistol revolver' is called the Peace Maker.
edit on 13-4-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join