NRA to Montana: Obama a threat to gun owners

[Shellback]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
No I am not dense, but I do no how the system works. The NRA supports semi-automatic weapons and others like them. They spend millions a year to lobby for their support. And now who's being nieve. I know someone who sold arms that was a member of the NRA. NRA is an organization of many members, some more level headed than others. Their members fight to legalize these weapons so they can sell them in volume. I never said that a law would stop guns, but it would make it easier to put these drug dealers in jail and convict them for the act if these type of weapons were illegal.
A hunter needs a 3030, 22, a shotgun and the likes to hunt. If someone breaks into my house or comes on to my property illegaly, either one of those would be enough to correct the problem.
Unless you are a "real" solider for the US Military- semi-automatic weapons are not a "necessity".
www.geocities.com/mepk1962

The second amendment was not intended solely for hunters. Really, it wasn't about hunters at all. It was intended to give the PEOPLE a means of defense against a tyrannical government.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

[Trin Tragula]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
Regular weapons: 22, 3030, shotgun.
NRA- support the selling of any weapon. Semi- automatic weapons (how many times do you need to shoot in a row to hit a deer- the first shot will spook it if you don't hit it.)
NRA crap- at the gun shows, we have talked to people that are supporting the NRA and trying to sign up members and they constantly make mention fo the democrats wanting to take away their rights to bare arms, dictate to them what they can do, etc. We listen quietly and nod and then go about our business, because we know that's not true, but you know as well as I do, if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it and these people are a bunch of liars.
www.geocities.com/mepk1962

Your comments are so inane and ignorant, I don't know where to begin.

How many times do you need to shoot a deer?

Indeed!

How about "how many times do you have to shoot the criminal breaking into yuor house to knock him down?"

You really do have a narrow mind. Maybe you should do a little research as to why people have guns before you spew this dribble.

Here - let me help you with some of that research to get you started:

According to a 2005 Gallop poll, the three main reasons for owning guns are personal protection (67%), target shooting (66%), and hunting (58%).

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/Gun-Ownershi...

So let's discuss th0se reasons a bit, shall we?

Personal Protection: One of the primary reasons the Supreme Court was deciding the D.C. versus Heller case. We as individuals have a right to protect ourselves and our families. I will go farther and say that we have the responsibility to do so. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments and the government do not have the responsibility to protect individuals, as ruled in cases such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, and Warren versus The District of Columbia. And heaven forbid we should have another terrorist attack on our soil. Our embassy in Istanbul, Turkey was recently attacked by terrorists with handguns and shotguns. How long before they take their show on the road (to the U.S.) again?

Target Shooting: Whether for casual recreation or organized sport, target shooting helps to meet a wide variety of responsible behavior. Keeping shooting skills sharp, making sure that firearms operate correctly, sighting in our scopes. By doing so, I believe that we are living up to our responsibilities of being proficient so that we can hunt effectively and harvest game in the most humane way possible. The connection to personal protection should be obvious – if I’m going to shoot in self defense, I want to make sure it is the bad guy who gets shot!

Hunting: It is a known fact that hunters are among the most effective resource conservationists and stewards of wildlife. Hunting helps maintain wildlife populations, keeps our natural resources strong, and provides a means of sustenance. If the tools for hunting were no longer allowed, I shudder to think what would happen to wildlife populations. Wildlife populations are thriving today because of the responsible practices of hunters.

Now - go educate yourself before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.

[Trin Tragula]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
No I am not dense, but I do no how the system works. The NRA supports semi-automatic weapons and others like them. They spend millions a year to lobby for their support. And now who's being nieve. I know someone who sold arms that was a member of the NRA. NRA is an organization of many members, some more level headed than others. Their members fight to legalize these weapons so they can sell them in volume. I never said that a law would stop guns, but it would make it easier to put these drug dealers in jail and convict them for the act if these type of weapons were illegal.
A hunter needs a 3030, 22, a shotgun and the likes to hunt. If someone breaks into my house or comes on to my property illegaly, either one of those would be enough to correct the problem.
Unless you are a "real" solider for the US Military- semi-automatic weapons are not a "necessity".
www.geocities.com/mepk1962

Don't sell yourself short: You sound EXTREMELY dense to me!

You "no" how the system works? Or you "know" how the system works?

Learn which word to use before you pontificate about knowing about the "system."

What is this hang-up you have with semi-automatic weapons, anyway? Are you really that frightened of those inanimate objects?

[adapt and overcome - Tx]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
I can only say to you that it is a Bill of Rights , not a bill of needs that protect our country.
What is someone thought the internet a dangerous mode of communication and only wanted land line phones for communication, because 'internet communication' is not something we really NEED and is potentially dangerous, would you consider those that battle against that type thinking to be radical extremists?

Well since this is about guns and not communication. Let me just say that the Right to Bear Arms is just that and Barack Obama has never once said that he doesn't want people to be able to protect themselves.
And as for communication. Would you call this administration "radical extremists"? Because they have done everything in their power to be able to tap into any information, be it email, phone etc without having to get permits. I know for a fact, that if any words which they feel are a threat "bomb,muslim,guns,etc. they are already tapping into this email.

[adapt and overcome - Tx]

Trin Tragula wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't sell yourself short: You sound EXTREMELY dense to me!
You "no" how the system works? Or you "know" how the system works?
Learn which word to use before you pontificate about knowing about the "system."
What is this hang-up you have with semi-automatic weapons, anyway? Are you really that frightened of those inanimate objects?

I'm sorry, I didn't know this was also an english lesson and that typo's were being graded, you arrogant jackass. But it is "I KNOW". I don't have a hangup on them. I actually own one that was a gift, so it stays locked up in my gun safe, but I would never have bought it. As a child my father made sure all the girls knew how to protect themselves and my husband has done the same with our daughters. They are both excellent marksmen, but they don't need those type of weapons to protect or sustain their nurishment for survival.

[adapt and overcome - Tx]

Trin Tragula wrote:

<quoted text>
Your comments are so inane and ignorant, I don't know where to begin.
How many times do you need to shoot a deer?
Indeed!**I WAS STATING A FACT.
How about "how many times do you have to shoot the criminal breaking into yuor house to knock him down?" **IF YOU'RE ANY GOOD, PROBABLY ONCE, BUT A GUN HOLDS SEVERAL ROUNDS.
You really do have a narrow mind. Maybe you should do a little research as to why people have guns before you spew this dribble.**I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE GUNS BECAUSE OF FEAR. OTHERS BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL POWERFUL. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
Here - let me help you with some of that research to get you started:
According to a 2005 Gallop poll, the three main reasons for owning guns are personal protection (67%), target shooting (66%), and hunting (58%).
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/Gun-Ownershi...
So let's discuss th0se reasons a bit, shall we?
Personal Protection: One of the primary reasons the Supreme Court was deciding the D.C. versus Heller case. We as individuals have a right to protect ourselves and our families. I will go farther and say that we have the responsibility to do so. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments and the government do not have the responsibility to protect individuals, as ruled in cases such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, and Warren versus The District of Columbia. And heaven forbid we should have another terrorist attack on our soil. Our embassy in Istanbul, Turkey was recently attacked by terrorists with handguns and shotguns. How long before they take their show on the road (to the U.S.) again?
**WELL MAYBE YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT REPORT ON HOW OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ ARE HAVING TROUBLE SURVIVING BATTLES IN CLOSE QUARTERS WITH THEIR WEAPONS, IN CLOSE QUARTERS THEY ARE NOT AS EFFECTIVE AND THEY NEED MORE HANDGUNS. THEIR AK47'S AND SAW'S ARE NOT AS EFFECTIVE IN THIS CLOSE RANGE FIGHTING.
SO CUT THE FEAR TACTICS, THEY ARE GETTING SO OLD.
Target Shooting: Whether for casual recreation or organized sport, target shooting helps to meet a wide variety of responsible behavior. Keeping shooting skills sharp, making sure that firearms operate correctly, sighting in our scopes. By doing so, I believe that we are living up to our responsibilities of being proficient so that we can hunt effectively and harvest game in the most humane way possible. The connection to personal protection should be obvious – if I’m going to shoot in self defense, I want to make sure it is the bad guy who gets shot!
**IF YOU ARE SHOOTING AT TARGETS- THEN YOU SHOULD BE QUITE ABLE TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY WITH STANDARD WEAPONS. UNLESS YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SHOT.
Hunting: It is a known fact that hunters are among the most effective resource conservationists and stewards of wildlife. Hunting helps maintain wildlife populations, keeps our natural resources strong, and provides a means of sustenance. If the tools for hunting were no longer allowed, I shudder to think what would happen to wildlife populations. Wildlife populations are thriving today because of the responsible practices of hunters.
**I KNOW THAT, WE'VE BEEN ON A DEER LEASE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND MAINTAIN IT QUITE WELL, BUT NEVER HAVE WE GONE HUNTING WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATIVE WEAPON.
Now - go educate yourself before you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.

YOU ARE THE FOOL, TRYING TO MAKE YOUSELF ALL KNOWING. THE GALLON POLL JUST PROVED MY POINT. IF 67% SHOOT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION, 66% SHOOT FOR PRACTICE AT TARGETS AND 58% SHOOT FOR HUNTING. THEN YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT SEMI-AUTOMATIVE WEAPONS ARE NOT A NECESSITY, BUT A LUXURY FOR SOME AND A DANGEROUS OBSESSION FOR OTHERS.

[Plant Lady]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
Well since this is about guns and not communication. Let me just say that the Right to Bear Arms is just that and Barack Obama has never once said that he doesn't want people to be able to protect themselves.
And as for communication. Would you call this administration "radical extremists"? Because they have done everything in their power to be able to tap into any information, be it email, phone etc without having to get permits. I know for a fact, that if any words which they feel are a threat "bomb,muslim,guns,etc. they are already tapping into this email.

It can be about anything we care to post about. Topix sets the rules here, not the gov't. Hence the 1st ammendment applies yes? The 2nd protects all the other rights that are acknowledged as inalieanable (SP?), NOT GIVING them or granting them.

You pick and choose your rights? How about the 5th? You want to delagate it as well to those to which we don't bother to address? How about the 4th....do you know what it is?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is 'tapping into' the same as 'against the law'?

[Plant Lady]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU ARE THE FOOL, TRYING TO MAKE YOUSELF ALL KNOWING. THE GALLON POLL JUST PROVED MY POINT. IF 67% SHOOT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION, 66% SHOOT FOR PRACTICE AT TARGETS AND 58% SHOOT FOR HUNTING. THEN YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT SEMI-AUTOMATIVE WEAPONS ARE NOT A NECESSITY, BUT A LUXURY FOR SOME AND A DANGEROUS OBSESSION FOR OTHERS.

So is an SUV.

[Plant Lady]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was also an english lesson and that typo's were being graded, you arrogant jackass. But it is "I KNOW". I don't have a hangup on them. I actually own one that was a gift, so it stays locked up in my gun safe, but I would never have bought it. As a child my father made sure all the girls knew how to protect themselves and my husband has done the same with our daughters. They are both excellent marksmen, but they don't need those type of weapons to protect or sustain their nurishment for survival.

You don't have a right to your cell phone. It isn't covered in the BOR as a communication device. You don't need it for your survival or to sustain your nourishment.

[FARII]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
Well since this is about guns and not communication. Let me just say that the Right to Bear Arms is just that and Barack Obama has never once said that he doesn't want people to be able to protect themselves.
And as for communication. Would you call this administration "radical extremists"? Because they have done everything in their power to be able to tap into any information, be it email, phone etc without having to get permits. I know for a fact, that if any words which they feel are a threat "bomb,muslim,guns,etc. they are already tapping into this email.

Obama voted against "self defense" in Illinois. You're quoting him since he squared-off with Hillary in Pennsylvania trying to get the nomination,(at which time he tried like hell to disown his preponderous anti 2nd amendment voting record). If you're gonna tell it, tell it right. We won't be voting for the socialist/liberal swine, you can if you want to, it's a free country. Might even stay that way if "global boy" gets shown the curb in November! Grovel at the feet of your globalist/fascist idol, don't expect us to join you there!

[FARII]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
No I am not dense, but I do no how the system works. The NRA supports semi-automatic weapons and others like them. They spend millions a year to lobby for their support. And now who's being nieve. I know someone who sold arms that was a member of the NRA. NRA is an organization of many members, some more level headed than others. Their members fight to legalize these weapons so they can sell them in volume. I never said that a law would stop guns, but it would make it easier to put these drug dealers in jail and convict them for the act if these type of weapons were illegal.
A hunter needs a 3030, 22, a shotgun and the likes to hunt. If someone breaks into my house or comes on to my property illegaly, either one of those would be enough to correct the problem.
Unless you are a "real" solider for the US Military- semi-automatic weapons are not a "necessity".
www.geocities.com/mepk1962

As a matter of fact, the "militia" referenced in the 2nd amendment is quite distinct from "real soldier", as real soldiers are conscripted,(continental) army, ie... the armed forces. Militia is just volunteer citizens and it's these whom the 2nd guaranteed the RKBA to. And, there's no limitation at all on the class of weapons, did'nt you notice? They did have cannon and rockets in 1791, and could have excluded those from civilian possession, but they did'nt! The intent was for the M-I-L-I-T-I-A to have full access to all weapons so it could, if needed, function as an army. Read it again, Einstein!

[Trin Tragula]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU ARE THE FOOL, TRYING TO MAKE YOUSELF ALL KNOWING. THE GALLON POLL JUST PROVED MY POINT. IF 67% SHOOT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION, 66% SHOOT FOR PRACTICE AT TARGETS AND 58% SHOOT FOR HUNTING. THEN YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT SEMI-AUTOMATIVE WEAPONS ARE NOT A NECESSITY, BUT A LUXURY FOR SOME AND A DANGEROUS OBSESSION FOR OTHERS.

Really? And that proves that about semi-automatic weapons, how? Wow - you were able to extrapolate information to fit your own needs just perfectly there, weren't you? Amazing how you were able to glean that information about semi-automatic weapons from those statistics.

What do most people use for personal protection, pray tell?

Priceless.

[Trin Tragula]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was also an english lesson and that typo's were being graded, you arrogant jackass. But it is "I KNOW". I don't have a hangup on them. I actually own one that was a gift, so it stays locked up in my gun safe, but I would never have bought it. As a child my father made sure all the girls knew how to protect themselves and my husband has done the same with our daughters. They are both excellent marksmen, but they don't need those type of weapons to protect or sustain their nurishment for survival.

Don't know what to tell ya, toots, other than what Plant Lady has so eloquently said many many (many, many...) times....

It isn't a Bill of Wants, a Bill of Needs, or a Bill of Desires... it is the Bill of Rights. Our Supreme Court has even confirmed that banning a certain type of firearm is unconstitutional.

If you don't like our Constitution or Bill of Rights, you are indeed free to leave.

I just don't see why you are so frightened of a certain type of weapon just because "semi-automatic" is on the name.

Would you please state for me how many times a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN has used one to harm you? What exactly is your objection to them? You haven't stated any concrete reasoning, other than you just don't like them. Well... I don't like onions, but that doesn't mean I have the right to tell everyone else they can't eat them. I don't like cars when they are used by drunk drivers to kill people. But that doesn't mean I have the right to tell others they can't drive. So what in the hell gives YOU the right to tell me I can't have a certain type of firearm?

[feedup]

adapt and overcome - Tx wrote:

<quoted text>
I actually own one that was a gift, so it stays locked up in my gun safe, but I would never have bought it.

So how was this gift acquired?

You could be in violation of one if not all of the following.

National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act (1968), Firearms Owner`s Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act and other laws.

[IhateNRA]

The NRA is a joke. I just viewed a video in which an Approx. 12 year old girl dis assembled and reassenbled an AK-47 in 57 minutes while her presumed father videao tapped and cheared this accomplishment. Is this really what a parent should be teaching a child??? Well thanks to the NRA this is the kind of disgusting crap that is going on.

[Trin Tragula]

IhateNRA wrote:

The NRA is a joke. I just viewed a video in which an Approx. 12 year old girl dis assembled and reassenbled an AK-47 in 57 minutes while her presumed father videao tapped and cheared this accomplishment. Is this really what a parent should be teaching a child??? Well thanks to the NRA this is the kind of disgusting crap that is going on.

Yeah - teaching kids to be able to disassemble and reassemble something mechanical is pretty "disgusting." (rolling eyes). Are you for real? Why are you so afraid of guns?

BTW: My kids can diassemble and reassemble my AR-15 in a few minutes.... so I guess 47 minutes is pretty disgusting... they need to do it faster.

[Plant Lady]

IhateNRA wrote:

The NRA is a joke. I just viewed a video in which an Approx. 12 year old girl dis assembled and reassenbled an AK-47 in 57 minutes while her presumed father videao tapped and cheared this accomplishment. Is this really what a parent should be teaching a child??? Well thanks to the NRA this is the kind of disgusting crap that is going on.

Why is that disgusting. Do you think attending sex parties is a better alternative?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Health/story...