aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #51 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I wish they would actually do something to ensure that the second amendment is not abolished instead of blocking any sensible laws put forward to increases gun security. As I said before: If the gun lovers don't work on a solution for the present untenable situation the gun haters will. And guess what we will like better? again this empty WE. who is WE exactly??? you personaly can't do anything, but i can and i do. the only way you gunhaters will be happy if there are no guns, you can tell me anything you want, but it will all be another lie. there will always be crimes with guns, and you will always blame guns, no matter what, and always say gunowners don't do enough to ensure everyones safety, so instead of trying to do imposible, and make you happy, i'm gonna be making myself happy, by paying $$$ to nra, so they can buy whatever politician they need to buy, to shut them, and you up. edit, actually they wont be able to shut you up, but i\we the gunowners, don't care, you are very independent man,as far as us politics goes, nothing depends on you. lol Edited January 25, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted January 25, 2013 #52 Share Posted January 25, 2013 No they're powerful for the same reasons that AIPAC is powerful. The difference is, guns are mentioned in our Constitution. Israel isn't. Was only a joke Yamato. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #53 Share Posted January 25, 2013 again this empty WE. who is WE exactly??? you personaly can't do anything, but i can and i do. the only way you gunhaters will be happy if there are no guns, you can tell me anything you want, but it will all be another lie. there will always be crimes with guns, and you will always blame guns, no matter what, and always say gunowners don't do enough to ensure everyones safety, so instead of trying to do imposible, and make you happy, i'm gonna be making myself happy, by paying $$$ to nra, so they can buy whatever politician they need to buy, to shut them, and you up. edit, actually they wont be able to shut you up, but i\we the gunowners, don't care, you are very independent man,as far as us politics goes, nothing depends on you. lol I don't know where you get the title "gunhater" from, surely can only be that you have been reading my posts under the influence. I have nothing against guns, I just want people to handle them responsibly and be held seriously accountable for failing to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted January 25, 2013 #54 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Let's also keep in mind that many groups make a good deal of money by positioning the NRA as the big bad. Funny story - my first wife was a big lib and into pretty much any left wing cause. One day (mid 1990s) she got two solicitations in the mail - one from the Brady Campaign and one from PETA. The Brady letter was all about how they had the NRA on the ropes, membership was dropping, they were losing their influence in Washington, etc and with your donation, they might finally be able to end the NRAs scourge on humanity. The PETA letter was about how they needed her help trying to stop the all-powerful NRA that had its icy hands around the necks of thousands of federal and state politicians as it carried out its wholesale genocide against animals. I pretty much peed myself laughing so hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #55 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Let's also keep in mind that many groups make a good deal of money by positioning the NRA as the big bad. Funny story - my first wife was a big lib and into pretty much any left wing cause. One day (mid 1990s) she got two solicitations in the mail - one from the Brady Campaign and one from PETA. The Brady letter was all about how they had the NRA on the ropes, membership was dropping, they were losing their influence in Washington, etc and with your donation, they might finally be able to end the NRAs scourge on humanity. The PETA letter was about how they needed her help trying to stop the all-powerful NRA that had its icy hands around the necks of thousands of federal and state politicians as it carried out its wholesale genocide against animals. I pretty much peed myself laughing so hard. I did too, except on the Brady Bill part. The only gun law enacted that demonstrably led to a reduction in gun violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted January 25, 2013 #56 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I did too, except on the Brady Bill part. The only gun law enacted that demonstrably led to a reduction in gun violence. Correct - because of the background checks which are fully supported by the majority of law abiding gun owners and the NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #57 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Correct - because of the background checks which are fully supported by the majority of law abiding gun owners and the NRA. Not really, they went to court against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #58 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) well bills are tricky things, bill about problem A might have a tiny bit of problem B in it. and since the bill passed or failed as a whole, not in parts, normaly. me being agains part B, makes it look like i'm against problem A as well, which is not the case. there was a bill, waiting period, background checks, so nra fought it as a whole, even if they are agree to background checks, but not to waiting period, it gives gunhaters reason to say big evil nra don't want the checks. 2 kind of ppl do that, stupid ones, and smart liers, that expect dumb ppl, not to get into details, and fall for their lies. Edited January 25, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #59 Share Posted January 25, 2013 read your link, nra was against 5 day waiting period, not background checks. And what good is a half baked background check? Right, it would have been toothless. You can claim that you are as much in favor of any law when you at the same time hamper its effective implementation? Besides, they funded campaigns against the whole bill, not any provision in it. In fact, in Printz VS. USA they even attempted to make the whole federal mandated background check unconstitutional. And they even pulled it off... too bad for them that the background checks were so effective that most states kept them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #60 Share Posted January 25, 2013 USA they even attempted to make the whole federal mandated background check unconstitutional. And they even pulled it off... too bad for them that the background checks were so effective that most states kept them. of couse thay did, like i said they had to fight bill as a whole, even if only some parts they are opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #61 Share Posted January 25, 2013 of couse thay did, like i said they had to fight bill as a whole, even if only some parts they are opposed to. Wrong, you can sue against any and all provisions within a bill, if you just want to go against the waiting period that that is what you do if you are for background checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #62 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) lol, it is a bill not law, it is either passed or not, you can sue after if it is a law, and you against it,bill is nothing but a proposal, untill it is a law, there is really no reason to sue, bill has no power. either way, i'm sure they (nra ila) know how to do politics in washington, so it takes less time, and you can actuially see result within your term. of course everyone around the world knows better, than ppl there. nothing unusual. one thing they know for sure, gunhaters will never be happy as long as we have guns, no matter how they try to cover it, so i agree if nra fights every single restriction\law\ban\control, that gunhaters try to impose. today you only want control, tomorow, when your control fails, you will want more control, cuz it was not enough. so no, i'll help nra to fight your desire to control me, with every dollar i sent them. Edited January 25, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #63 Share Posted January 25, 2013 lol, it is a bill not law, it is either passed or not, you can sue after if it is a law, and you against it,bill is nothing but a proposal, untill it is a law, there is really no reason to sue, bill has no power. either way, i'm sure they (nra ila) know how to do politics in washington, so it takes less time, and you can actuially see result within your term. of course everyone around the world knows better, than ppl there. nothing unusual. Wrong, you can sue against any and all provisions within a bill law, if you just want to go against the waiting period that that is what you do if you are for background checks Happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #64 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Wrong, you can sue against any and all provisions within a bill law, if you just want to go against the waiting period that that is what you do if you are for background checks Happy now? no, i don't want it become a law, so i don't have to fight it than, which will be a lot harder. it wil take a lot longer, and cost a lot more than. you know the saying, an oz of prevention, beats a lb of cure. Edited January 25, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 25, 2013 #65 Share Posted January 25, 2013 no, i don't want it become a law, so i don't have to fight it than, which will be a lot harder. you know the saying, an oz of prevention, beats a lb of cure. A ounce of guns used in crime increase the sales of the gun industry by the pound is what you mean to say, right? So does the NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #66 Share Posted January 25, 2013 wrong, that is what you wanted to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted January 25, 2013 #67 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's funny how the same people that HATE unions participation in government seem to LOVE the NRA's own participation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 25, 2013 #68 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) It's funny how the same people that HATE unions participation in government seem to LOVE the NRA's own participation. unions participation in government?? don't care much about, unions that stay in a way of ME doing buissnes, that i do hate. unions that act like thugs, you have no idea how much i don't like it. nra supporting my interests, what is there to hate? nothing imo. Edited January 25, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Order66 Posted January 26, 2013 #69 Share Posted January 26, 2013 It's funny how the same people that HATE unions participation in government seem to LOVE the NRA's own participation. You mean the National Labor Relations Board? Where's the National Gun-Owners Relation Board, the unelected board of officials who enact regulations making it more difficult to take guns away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 26, 2013 Author #70 Share Posted January 26, 2013 And you could mention one (excluding Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola)? The energy industry. Coke and Pepsi are corporations in the beverage industry. They're not industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 26, 2013 #71 Share Posted January 26, 2013 The energy industry. Coke and Pepsi are corporations in the beverage industry. They're not industries. Doubt it, 26% of the primary energy in the USA is imported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan'O Posted January 26, 2013 #72 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I was looking at a recent article on Yahoo and was amazed at the numbers on the comments section. Both the number of replies for a newish article like this but also the pro gun stance of the replies. 36,660 comments as I am looking at it... I did not crunch the numbers but it looks like around 95% pro gun stance. I doubt the admin and congress will be able to wiggle this, attack on the people, by the people. http://news.yahoo.co...ANRD1oAhQDQtDMD Wow...VP Biden really should be seen and not heard. And those numbers seem to call into question a whole slew of recent polls that have been put out by the so-called press. Hard to fake or taint yahoos algorithms. Maybe the NRA did it!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 26, 2013 #73 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I was looking at a recent article on Yahoo and was amazed at the numbers on the comments section. Both the number of replies for a newish article like this but also the pro gun stance of the replies. 36,660 comments as I am looking at it... I did not crunch the numbers but it looks like around 95% pro gun stance. I doubt the admin and congress will be able to wiggle this, attack on the people, by the people. http://news.yahoo.co...ANRD1oAhQDQtDMD Wow...VP Biden really should be seen and not heard. And those numbers seem to call into question a whole slew of recent polls that have been put out by the so-called press. Hard to fake or taint yahoos algorithms. Maybe the NRA did it!? Pro-gun is not equal to anti-gun-control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan'O Posted January 26, 2013 #74 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I know Q...just a overall feely goody thing here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted January 26, 2013 #75 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) You can't judge public opinion by who likes or dislikes something on a message board. As I understand it Obama's proposals are fairly modest, just background checks and a ban of some forms of weapons no one has any sane use for. I like the situation here in Vietnam: no one has guns except the police and the army, and their use of them is tightly controlled. There is crime here -- with knives mainly -- and so the death rate is much lower. I don't really know how they keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but they do. Edited January 26, 2013 by Frank Merton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now