Are the President's kids more important than your kids? Ad from NRA

2seaoat wrote:Now we have truthers at Sandy Hook, and Ads by the NRA which start with the above.........when we have no common decency......we have fallen too far. I think the silent majority of Americans have had enough with the extremist who have made this country simply less safe. There will be a price paid by the NRA for ads like that.........

2seaoat wrote:Yes you are right. The country is fed up with the bull shit our gov is dishing. And I dont think you know hwo the silent majority are, let me give you a clue. not you. or like you.


You are right.....I voted for Johnson. The majority of Americans voted for Obama. The same folks who are going to demand that the NRA and the vocal minority of crazies no longer dictate policy........game, set, match.

newswatcher wrote:

Incorrect....this is not a "game, set, match"...Political games are one thing when dealing with issues like not allowing legislation to come up for a vote...killing legislation with any consderation etc., ....what's happening now is an attack on the Constitution by executive orders...if there are a majority that want to change the Constitution then do so by the rules that have been established...don't leave the Congress and States out...For the record have never been a fan of executive orders...The 'crazies' as they are called are the individuals that are using tragedy to take away rights and essentially change a Constitutional Right without debate and/or procedure to take the necessary steps for that change...Were the diseased animals responsible for the latest shootings at the theater and school members of the NRA?...NO ONE in the NRA or with any common sense or decency is for these types of actions and because there are people that believe this way they are now the 'radicals'?....Some of the same people that support these executive orders/policy of the cowh are so enlightened that they called for members of the NRA be 'shot'....now there's some twisted logic...When any president conducts business in this manner it truly represents what the Founding Fathers established and feared the most...a too powerful and out of control federal government....

Sal wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Incorrect....this is not a "game, set, match"...Political games are one thing when dealing with issues like not allowing legislation to come up for a vote...killing legislation with any consderation etc., ....what's happening now is an attack on the Constitution by executive orders...if there are a majority that want to change the Constitution then do so by the rules that have been established...don't leave the Congress and States out...For the record have never been a fan of executive orders...The 'crazies' as they are called are the individuals that are using tragedy to take away rights and essentially change a Constitutional Right without debate and/or procedure to take the necessary steps for that change...Were the diseased animals responsible for the latest shootings at the theater and school members of the NRA?...NO ONE in the NRA or with any common sense or decency is for these types of actions and because there are people that believe this way they are now the 'radicals'?....Some of the same people that support these executive orders/policy of the cowh are so enlightened that they called for members of the NRA be 'shot'....now there's some twisted logic...When any president conducts business in this manner it truly represents what the Founding Fathers established and feared the most...a too powerful and out of control federal government....

Any person who is currently a NRA member (or who has been one within the last 11 years, as per standard FBI security clearance checks) should be automatically flagged as too psychologically unfit to be in possession of any firearms.

Period.

Once they have undergone extensive psychological evaluation (at their own expense) to determine that they are not domestic terrorist threats, then they may be issued permits to access firearms again, so long as they do not re-join the NRA or a similar organization.

The entire organization needs to be shut down and investigated for sedition and domestic terrorism.

For the record, I am a gun owner. I was an NRA member, but allowed my membership to expire by the late-'80s because I was so utterly disgusted with what they had become.

I now view them as a national security threat and a domestic terrorist organization, and that view point is unlikely to change for the remainder of my lifetime.

The NRA does not even represent the vast majority of their members, who overwhelmingly support background checks, assault weapons bans, etc.

The real constituency for the NRA are not the "members" but the arms manufacturers who fund it in the millions of dollars each year and who pack its board with their executives.

Why do they want security guards in schools? Because it will mean more gun purchases, pure and simple. Thousands upon thousands of schools in communities all across the country DO NOT NEED 'security guards' being paid to wander the halls with nothing to do on the off chance that a armed intruder with body armor and an arsenal in a bag and a death wish who might show up. Even a highly trained special ops veteran would be ill suited to hunting down a shooter in the mayhem of a school, much less an off-duty Barney Fife.

What the NRA does want is to feed the paranoia that we all NEED to be massively armed to exist in this country to be safe.

Shorter NRA in this ad - "Back Off, Or We Kill Your Daughters".

newswatcher wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Yes you are right. The country is fed up with the bull shit our gov is dishing. And I dont think you know hwo the silent majority are, let me give you a clue. not you. or like you.


You are right.....I voted for Johnson. The majority of Americans voted for Obama. The same folks who are going to demand that the NRA and the vocal minority of crazies no longer dictate policy........game, set, match.

Incorrect....this is not a "game, set, match"...Political games are one thing when dealing with issues like not allowing legislation to come up for a vote...killing legislation with any consderation etc., ....what's happening now is an attack on the Constitution by executive orders...if there are a majority that want to change the Constitution then do so by the rules that have been established...don't leave the Congress and States out...For the record have never been a fan of executive orders...The 'crazies' as they are called are the individuals that are using tragedy to take away rights and essentially change a Constitutional Right without debate and/or procedure to take the necessary steps for that change...Were the diseased animals responsible for the latest shootings at the theater and school members of the NRA?...NO ONE in the NRA or with any common sense or decency is for these types of actions and because there are people that believe this way they are now the 'radicals'?....Some of the same people that support these executive orders/policy of the cowh are so enlightened that they called for members of the NRA be 'shot'....now there's some twisted logic...When any president conducts business in this manner it truly represents what the Founding Fathers established and feared the most...a too powerful and out of control federal government....

knothead wrote:Personally, I tend to agree more with Sal and the points he has made regarding the NRA.

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:Personally, I tend to agree more with Sal and the points he has made regarding the NRA.

The NRA fights to PROTECT the Second Amendment to the Constitution and for the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms legally as set by the Founding Fathers. Just think....does anyone really think that the NRA (or anyone else) would want the negative publicity when there is a tragedy...NO ONE supports/defends/excuses the behavior/actions of these sick individuals but punishment towards law abiding citizens and regulations will not put an end to future tragedies...it would be impossible to pass a law and expect the problem be solved...Some of the most strict gun laws on record have some of the highest levels of gun related violence--criminals do not and will not adhere to the new laws and regulations...But should the approach be to amend the second amendement then do so in accordance with the amending procedure and allow the process to be defined...debated..and voted upon and see the will of the people...

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:Personally, I tend to agree more with Sal and the points he has made regarding the NRA.

The NRA fights to PROTECT the Second Amendment to the Constitution and for the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms legally as set by the Founding Fathers. Just think....does anyone really think that the NRA (or anyone else) would want the negative publicity when there is a tragedy...NO ONE supports/defends/excuses the behavior/actions of these sick individuals but punishment towards law abiding citizens and regulations will not put an end to future tragedies...it would be impossible to pass a law and expect the problem be solved...Some of the most strict gun laws on record have some of the highest levels of gun related violence--criminals do not and will not adhere to the new laws and regulations...But should the approach be to amend the second amendement then do so in accordance with the amending procedure and allow the process to be defined...debated..and voted upon and see the will of the people...

othershoe1030 wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:Personally, I tend to agree more with Sal and the points he has made regarding the NRA.

The NRA fights to PROTECT the Second Amendment to the Constitution and for the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms legally as set by the Founding Fathers. Just think....does anyone really think that the NRA (or anyone else) would want the negative publicity when there is a tragedy...NO ONE supports/defends/excuses the behavior/actions of these sick individuals but punishment towards law abiding citizens and regulations will not put an end to future tragedies...it would be impossible to pass a law and expect the problem be solved...Some of the most strict gun laws on record have some of the highest levels of gun related violence--criminals do not and will not adhere to the new laws and regulations...But should the approach be to amend the second amendement then do so in accordance with the amending procedure and allow the process to be defined...debated..and voted upon and see the will of the people...

IMO the NRA is the lobbying agent for gun manufacturers. They are in a win-win situation. When there is a mass shooting some people go out and buy another gun for personal protection, cha-ching, a gun sale. And if there is an up-tic in demand for sensible gun safety laws people go out and buy more guns for fear of the source being cut off, cha-ching, more gun sales.
Their answer to gun violence in schools?...More armed guards at every school, cha-ching more gun sales. Isn't it evident they love gun sales?

The NRA thrives on negative events. If they really cared about making sure only sane people could buy guns they'd be pushing for laws that supported that. Are they? Of course no law will insure the end to gun violence but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Mental health access is also an issue that needs to be addressed.

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:Personally, I tend to agree more with Sal and the points he has made regarding the NRA.

The NRA fights to PROTECT the Second Amendment to the Constitution and for the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms legally as set by the Founding Fathers. Just think....does anyone really think that the NRA (or anyone else) would want the negative publicity when there is a tragedy...NO ONE supports/defends/excuses the behavior/actions of these sick individuals but punishment towards law abiding citizens and regulations will not put an end to future tragedies...it would be impossible to pass a law and expect the problem be solved...Some of the most strict gun laws on record have some of the highest levels of gun related violence--criminals do not and will not adhere to the new laws and regulations...But should the approach be to amend the second amendement then do so in accordance with the amending procedure and allow the process to be defined...debated..and voted upon and see the will of the people...

******************************************************

I have an appreciation for your point-of-view, I really do. The points you articulate demonstrate how difficult and complex this issue is to remedy. Banning 'assault' weapons probably won't be effective although it would be legal according to current law. It is so complex yet begs for responsible comprehensive action, I concede I do not have the answer.

2seaoat wrote:Now we have truthers at Sandy Hook, and Ads by the NRA which start with the above.........when we have no common decency......we have fallen too far. I think the silent majority of Americans have had enough with the extremist who have made this country simply less safe. There will be a price paid by the NRA for ads like that.........

2seaoat wrote:
The entire mission of the NRA has shifted from an honorable mission to one of an evil mission to promote gun sales and make money. They have succeeded. Lots of money to make when you manipulate the message. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I am equally the advocate of my father......who so long ago taught me about gun safety......I will support any policy which works to improve gun safety and uses common sense. The NRA is exactly what is wrong about this country. It is a corrupt organization which has bastardized its original mission.

Nekochan wrote:I think that the NRA has a point....but I am against using children in this debate. I don't think the NRA should use Obama's kids and I don't think Obama should use kids like he's going to do today.

2seaoat wrote:Like all dems, you are against people making a profit...sheeesh.


Gee how does Al Gore fit into your paradigm.....

2seaoat wrote:under the guise of safety, people like you.

yep....and people like Ronald Reagan. Gun safety is common sense. I know of no responsible gun owner who does not want gun safety.....the NRA does not want the discussion......therein lies the problem.

newswatcher wrote:

Sal wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Incorrect....this is not a "game, set, match"...Political games are one thing when dealing with issues like not allowing legislation to come up for a vote...killing legislation with any consderation etc., ....what's happening now is an attack on the Constitution by executive orders...if there are a majority that want to change the Constitution then do so by the rules that have been established...don't leave the Congress and States out...For the record have never been a fan of executive orders...The 'crazies' as they are called are the individuals that are using tragedy to take away rights and essentially change a Constitutional Right without debate and/or procedure to take the necessary steps for that change...Were the diseased animals responsible for the latest shootings at the theater and school members of the NRA?...NO ONE in the NRA or with any common sense or decency is for these types of actions and because there are people that believe this way they are now the 'radicals'?....Some of the same people that support these executive orders/policy of the cowh are so enlightened that they called for members of the NRA be 'shot'....now there's some twisted logic...When any president conducts business in this manner it truly represents what the Founding Fathers established and feared the most...a too powerful and out of control federal government....

Any person who is currently a NRA member (or who has been one within the last 11 years, as per standard FBI security clearance checks) should be automatically flagged as too psychologically unfit to be in possession of any firearms.

Period.

Once they have undergone extensive psychological evaluation (at their own expense) to determine that they are not domestic terrorist threats, then they may be issued permits to access firearms again, so long as they do not re-join the NRA or a similar organization.

The entire organization needs to be shut down and investigated for sedition and domestic terrorism.

For the record, I am a gun owner. I was an NRA member, but allowed my membership to expire by the late-'80s because I was so utterly disgusted with what they had become.

I now view them as a national security threat and a domestic terrorist organization, and that view point is unlikely to change for the remainder of my lifetime.

The NRA does not even represent the vast majority of their members, who overwhelmingly support background checks, assault weapons bans, etc.

The real constituency for the NRA are not the "members" but the arms manufacturers who fund it in the millions of dollars each year and who pack its board with their executives.

Why do they want security guards in schools? Because it will mean more gun purchases, pure and simple. Thousands upon thousands of schools in communities all across the country DO NOT NEED 'security guards' being paid to wander the halls with nothing to do on the off chance that a armed intruder with body armor and an arsenal in a bag and a death wish who might show up. Even a highly trained special ops veteran would be ill suited to hunting down a shooter in the mayhem of a school, much less an off-duty Barney Fife.

What the NRA does want is to feed the paranoia that we all NEED to be massively armed to exist in this country to be safe.

Shorter NRA in this ad - "Back Off, Or We Kill Your Daughters".

And this poster is capable of defining/labeling what he calls 'crazies'...perhaps reading this rant explains another definition....