Most anti-gun presidential nominee..ever!?

You decide,
www.nrapvf.org...#

I had made the same conclusions months ago before I saw this but it's interesting none the less.

edit: click the third one down on the list and if interested in the UN plans for us click on that one as well!!

Very scary stuff. I hope the UN knows that we are a LOT less likely to roll over than our british and Aussie cousins on this subject.



[edit on 13-10-2004 by Fry2]

First, the link is to an NRA site...they think you are anti gun unless you have a dozen guns loaded and ready to use in every room of your house (I know, I know, I'm exagerating).

Second, You should edit your post to give a little more info than just the link...you might get more interest then.

p.s. No guns is a good thing, cause guns kill people.

Originally posted by sensfan

p.s. No guns is a good thing, cause guns kill people.

No...people kill people. Guns are just the means of killing. Actually the bullets are, but thats not the point.



[Edited on 13-10-2004 by dreamlandmafia]

Guns kill people!!! So do cars and cholesterol. Get over it.
Maybe you should look at the information presented before spouting your canned response? No, can't do that, there is a gun chasing you around the house trying to kill you....

GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE! when was the last time you saw a gun leap off the shelf and say "hasta la vista baby!"?

anyways im for people owning guns. but what use do civilians have owning assult rifels? if anyone needs assutlt rifels its the police. they should carry m-16's instead of 9mm. i guaren damn tee that if you equip police with assult weapons crim will drop dramatically. im not talking SWAT teams im talking every single lawenforcemnt person who wares the bules and drives a car around. thatll make crime fall. again civilians do not need ak-47s for hunting.

There is not a single more honorable organization in the world than the National Rifle Organization and its Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA trains either directly or indirectly every law enforcement officer in the land with their some 5000 certified firearms instructors. The NRA promotes the shooting sports and firearms safety, while the ILA proactively supports the Second Amendment. I am proud to be a Benefactor Member of the NRA and a Golden Eagle.

John Kerry, just like with everything else, speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He poses with firearms, brags about his prowess with firearms, but he spouts the lies of the anti-Second Amendment lobby. If John Kerry is elected, he will betray gun owners and the Second Amendment every bit as quickly as he betrayed his fellow Vietnam veterans.

John Kerry is a traitor.

People have no need for guns. Why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the USA compared to Australia and the UK. There is no reason to hold a gun, because unless you have to protect livestock or you are under constant threat from armed militants or gangs or something...

What are you people so afraid of that you need to have this security blanket... Is it to make you more Macho? Or is it beacuse you really think some ganster is gonna bust into your house shoot you...

Guns make me sick... if the country was in turmoil... ok then i see why guns would be ok... but your country is stable and there is no need for them...

And sport hunting is barbaric so dont even think of using that excuse

Originally posted by specialasianX
People have no need for guns. Why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the USA

Violent crime in America is highest where gun-control is the strictest. The nation's capitol, Washington, DC and New York City are the two best examples even though there are many more.

I'm here, I know....look to New Orleans for the cesspool.

Kerry is a former Law Enforcement official. I trust his opinons on the subject , or anyone who's held that sort of office that is on the front lines of violent crime, more so than a pampered & cloistered elitetest like Bush.
I dropped my NRA membership when they became too much the zealot & unreasonable, wanting to have too much of a very narrow political say. I am a proud member of US Sportsmens Alliance.
As a cheap demonizing attempt to paint my points on ATS, I've been called the "Most Leftist" or a "Weak Liberal. Here's a snapshot:
- Still wear a crewcut
- Still have a mustache ( because that's what men do! )
- Own and regularly shoot a 11-87 Super Magnum
- Own and regularly shoot compound & recurve bows
( I will gladly put up the deed to my upstate home as my wager to anyone who would like to get to the ranges & have a contest!! )
- Hunt, always with bow
- Fish & full the freezer whenever appropriate with fresh fillets
- Proud Alpha to a 125lb Shutzen trained Cane Corso bitch - my dog is something you don't want to mess with
- Still in good shape and flexible enough to soundly apply what I know of Korean, Okinawan & Phillipino styles

The point? Enthusiasm & participation in things that are typically not ascribed to your political profile does not exclude you from enabling protection of them or the proper inclusion of the elements of them that benefit society as a whole.

Enthusiasm & participation in things that are typically not ascribed to your political profile does not exclude you from enabling protection of them or the proper inclusion of the elements of them that benefit society as a whole.

So you support the second amendment at the same time you are pushing for one of the most anti-second amendment senators of all time to become the President of this country? Perhaps I missed something.
Nope, I got it.
I know many "liberals" who own or like to shoot firearms. I also know a good number of conservatives who believe in national health care and the right to choose. Kerry is NOT a supporter of the Right to keep and bear arms for the common man! He has made this painfully clear with his voting record in the senate and even his statements over the past few months.
His "lifelong hunter and gun owner" bit was a joke if you knew anything about his record. The staged pheasant (quail would have been funnier) hunt didn't really fool anyone that actually does hunt.
We're not talking about the "proper inclusion of" firearms in American society. We're talking about a potential president with the power and apparent desire to pass a firearms ban thus erasing the second amendment through obsolescence. It seems you face a moral dilemma in 19 days, my friend.

Originally posted by specialasianX
People have no need for guns. Why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the USA compared to Australia and the UK. There is no reason to hold a gun, because unless you have to protect livestock or you are under constant threat from armed militants or gangs or something...

What are you people so afraid of that you need to have this security blanket... Is it to make you more Macho? Or is it beacuse you really think some ganster is gonna bust into your house shoot you...

Guns make me sick... if the country was in turmoil... ok then i see why guns would be ok... but your country is stable and there is no need for them...

And sport hunting is barbaric so dont even think of using that excuse

Im a target shooter and I get sick and tired of people saying "People have no need for guns" Guess what its a real sport in the Olympics and everything. If you dont like guns fine but dont try to destroy a sport of people that dont share your views.

"And sport hunting is barbaric so dont even think of using that excuse " Well thats your opnion one not shared by millions of american hunters. I dont hunt but I respect their right to hunt.

People will say nobody needs a gun but nobody needs a car with over 50 HP either let alone a car with 550HP. And guess what cars with more then 50 HP kill many more times the people guns ever do.


Kerry is big time anti-gun no matter how many photo ops he takes with a hunting gun in his hand, Just look ay his record on the topic.

Originally posted by specialasianX
People have no need for guns. Why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the USA compared to Australia and the UK. There is no reason to hold a gun, because unless you have to protect livestock or you are under constant threat from armed militants or gangs or something...

Special, this is something you don't understand because you don't know about our second amendment, it seems......

There is every reason to have a gun, even Gandhi said that the blackest thing that the British empire did to India was to deprive the whole country of arms....

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Excerpted from.
www.quotedb.com...

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Muaddib]

All Republicans that would support Pataki or Guiliana for President? McCain? Schwarzegger?

Okay, what about Bush? He's not as bad as those above but does support the same weapons ban Kerry did. He just had the luxury as President to never vote on anything.

Final question. Where o where will the NRA find it's next puppet?

Jeb 2008? I'm asking. I have no idea who the real right could run next given the way the ethics committee is picking off right wingers now.

Maybe you guys should run Dean. He's A rating.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE! when was the last time you saw a gun leap off the shelf and say "hasta la vista baby!"?

anyways im for people owning guns. but what use do civilians have owning assult rifels? if anyone needs assutlt rifels its the police. they should carry m-16's instead of 9mm. i guaren damn tee that if you equip police with assult weapons crim will drop dramatically. im not talking SWAT teams im talking every single lawenforcemnt person who wares the bules and drives a car around. thatll make crime fall. again civilians do not need ak-47s for hunting.

I feel precisely the same way...I dunno if I'd trust EVERY cop with an m-16 though...there's plenty of shallow and privately motivated cops out there who would use that for no good...

First, let me say I'm pro-gun, but also pro-control...for some of you who have read this in my other thread, this may be a repeat - actually, more like a clarification after my recent "lesson" in the differences semi-autmoatic, autmatic and standard(?)...

I believe you should have restricted divisions of guns for restricted uses...Division A is for Use A...Division B is for Use B...This rifle is for hunting, not for shooting people...Gun companies make hundreds of different models and each is made with a specific use in mind...why not make that use a law - this is a weapon that kills, and in the hands of someone using it for the wrong purpose, it is a weapon that is not respected...

Those of you - including myself - who have proper gun handeling knowledge and protect your gund from children are respected...but that's not enough...There's even flaws in these protection techniques...triger locks are the most absurd idea I've ever heard of - they render the gun useless unless you can get that sucker off in time to use it....

A gun is a useful tool for some, and an unwanted one for others...but appropriate resrtictions MUST be in place for purchasing and use....plenty of people will obtain illegal guns on the black market, but that's a totally seperate matter that has nothing to do with how we control legal guns sales in America, and that's what's more dangerous and readily available to the average citizen....

What happened to the Second Amendment is what I would like to know? The patriot act has taken away most of our rights as Americans why can't people see that?

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun

I feel precisely the same way...I dunno if I'd trust EVERY cop with an m-16 though...there's plenty of shallow and privately motivated cops out there who would use that for no good...

A M-16 is not ideal for cops for many reasons. First it over penetrates which is bad when most cops are not the best shots (trust me) .You dont want stray shots going through peoples houses or hitting people hundreds of yards away from what your aiming at.

Most police shooting take place within 10 feet of each other. There is no need for a long rifle in any of these cases.

99 percent of the time a Military rifle is just going to get in the way of a officer during the course of his day.

There are some rare cases when a M-16 would be needed a suspect wearing body armour is one example and alot of police stations have them for this reason.Some cops in the LAPD carry them in their trunks for just this reason.

There is no need for a cop to carry a M-16 on his person all the time. The shotgun is much better for close combat which almost all shooting are. The MP-5 would be a far better choice for a in car secondary weapon then a M-16.

Then we have the whole intimadation factor of having military gear and long rifles. Your average Cop would be safer with full military body armour and helmets but they dont wear them in part for this reason. Police are not here to intimadate the public into fear.

There is a place for all this stuff and its called the SWAT team.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Okay, what about Bush? He's not as bad as those above but does support the same weapons ban Kerry did. He just had the luxury as President to never vote on anything.

Final question. Where o where will the NRA find it's next puppet?

Jeb 2008? I'm asking. I have no idea who the real right could run next given the way the ethics committee is picking off right wingers now.

Maybe you guys should run Dean. He's A rating.

Bush never suppored that ban. It was a political play on words. "I'll sign that bill if it makes it to my desk." Obviously a response written for him ahead of time...
It was a useless law in the first place and anyone bringing it up is a fool for thinking that the "assault weapon" ban actually had any affect on the violent crime rate in America. How about keeping violent criminals behind six feet of concrete or under six feet of dirt? Works for me.

Next; What exactly are you talking about with "puppet" for the NRA? Any politician in this country you ask will tell you how important it is to pay attention to us as well. We may not be as big as the AARP but there are 4 Million of us and at least 95% of us vote in EVERY election. You can't ignore those numbers. Add to that the other 76 Million gun owners (or more) in this country and you face a large percentage of the eligible voters in the U.S.. Listening to the NRA is not being a puppet, it's responding to the people you serve.

I liked Dean. I doubt I would have voted for him but he had a MUCH better chance than Kerry does with me.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Fry2]

Hmm...the NRA...one of the more difficult opinions for me to formulate. On one hand I believe in the right to own firearms as supported by the constitution, but I also believe in strict control. I don't despise the NRA as an organization, and I think such an organization is needed in any Democratic society. The only problem I have with the NRA appears to be during this election, as the website hints, and their support for Bush...the President said what he said...he would "sign that bill if it makes it to my desk" as Fry2 pointed out. With this stance they are being a little hypocritical. If they supported a candidate like Badnarik, I would understand their motives toward Kerry or Bush.

I also must state that I am an animal lover in the sense that I believe it is wrong to kill or endanger them, which is a personal choice of mine that I would never force upon anyone else...unless it is harming the overall ecosystem that a certain species lives in. On the other hand, whenever I eat a nice green salad, I am still eating a once living organism and therefore show my own hypocracy about "killing" fauna and flora. This issue in particular has always torn my soul in two directions. One; Hunting saddens me. Two; even though Hunting saddens me, I'm still killing plant life, and therefore killing a living being just like an animal. This is one of the few issues that has me torn in two ways

Anyhow, back to the NRA...

Many of my fellow denoted "Naderites" believe in making firearms illegal, which I believe is not right. Afterall, if the Govt. is the only one that owns the firearms how are we to defend ourselves should they ever get too much power? I do agree that strict(er) laws should be enforced on gun owners however, because just like cars and cholesterol people are in control of deadly weapons.

The NRA is useful. Does it need some reform in its ranks? Like any organization I would guess so. Does it need to be abolished? Quite the opposite.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Jazzerman]