Another Good News Story: The NRA has now granted permission to the U.S. Govt to perform its duties

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

I have zero interest in reading that article. Thanks though. I'll stand by my statement. Author is a blatant partisan hack.

LMAO.  Never change, Pete!

This is you admitting I am correct again. Thanks John! 

JohnInCarolina

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Dobie

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

Sounds like you're really on the fence yourself on this topic lmao.

I never said I was on the fence 

JohnInCarolina

Dobie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Dobie said:

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

Sounds like you're really on the fence yourself on this topic lmao.

I never said I was on the fence 

No kidding.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Um, I kinda took your comment as “I have nothing to offer but to make a nonsensical comment unrelated to the issue” 

i tend to take that as a less than graceful concession since if you reaearch the arch the author of the article you will concur. 

Yup!

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Um, I kinda took your comment as “I have nothing to offer but to make a nonsensical comment unrelated to the issue” 

i tend to take that as a less than graceful concession since if you reaearch the arch the author of the article you will concur. 

Yup!

Lol.  It's Friday night.  Relax Dorothy.  

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Um, I kinda took your comment as “I have nothing to offer but to make a nonsensical comment unrelated to the issue” 

i tend to take that as a less than graceful concession since if you reaearch the arch the author of the article you will concur. 

Yup!

Lol.  It's Friday night.  Relax Dorothy.  

I really should send you a bill for the education I give you. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Um, I kinda took your comment as “I have nothing to offer but to make a nonsensical comment unrelated to the issue” 

i tend to take that as a less than graceful concession since if you reaearch the arch the author of the article you will concur. 

Yup!

Lol.  It's Friday night.  Relax Dorothy.  

I really should send you a bill for the education I give you. 

Sounds legit!

Focker

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Pete with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" line of defense!

Um, I kinda took your comment as “I have nothing to offer but to make a nonsensical comment unrelated to the issue” 

i tend to take that as a less than graceful concession since if you reaearch the arch the author of the article you will concur. 

Yup!

Lol.  It's Friday night.  Relax Dorothy.  

I really should send you a bill for the education I give you. 

LMAO

Focker

This looks like fun.
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/rra-lar-9-r9-rifle/#rra-lar-9-r9-1

JohnInCarolina

Focker said:

This looks like fun.
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/rra-lar-9-r9-rifle/#rra-lar-9-r9-1

Yeah see if you can set up another date with an inanimate object. 

stlcharcoal

Focker said:

This looks like fun.
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/rra-lar-9-r9-rifle/#rra-lar-9-r9-1

Looks like fun, but I would never spend another dime with RRA or SA after they sold out all the FFL's and gun owners in IL.  The owners claimed they didn't know about it--"it was all the lobbyist's dirty dealings, and donating our money with anti-gun legislators."  BS!!  They knew exactly what they were doing......got themselves exempted from that new bill that's going to put a lot of small gun shops in downstate IL out of business.  Far worse than what S&W and Ruger did back in the day in my opinion.  You know there's a lot of dirty politics and a reason to keep your company in one of the most anti-gun states in the country.  Kudos to Magpul for bailing out of Colorado after that [now recalled] state legislator torpedoed them.  Don't bite the hand that feeds!!

Focker

stlcharcoal said:

Focker said:

This looks like fun.
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/rra-lar-9-r9-rifle/#rra-lar-9-r9-1

Looks like fun, but I would never spend another dime with RRA or SA after they sold out all the FFL's and gun owners in IL.  The owners claimed they didn't know about it--"it was all the lobbyist's dirty dealings, and donating our money with anti-gun legislators."  BS!!  They knew exactly what they were doing......got themselves exempted from that new bill that's going to put a lot of small gun shops in downstate IL out of business.  Far worse than what S&W and Ruger did back in the day in my opinion.  You know there's a lot of dirty politics and a reason to keep your company in one of the most anti-gun states in the country.  Kudos to Magpul for bailing out of Colorado after that [now recalled] state legislator torpedoed them.  Don't bite the hand that feeds!!

I do think they're (RRA) being honest.  They focked up.  Pretty simple.

Can you enlighten me, with factual data, to think otherwise?

And not any worse than what the others have done IMO.  And I'm sure you now shoot them. Lol

And their LAR outperformed 10 others, giving them a uuuuge DEA contract.  Then an FBI contract.  1 MOA at 100.
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=4138
That may loosen your thong knot. 

Really don't see any of the big 4 of the 5 AR companies here leaving.

IL is focked up, I give you that.  Les was smart, and moved across the river to IA years ago.

If there is an uprising, I'm buggin' out 15 min to Geneseo. 

dsleight

JohnInCarolina said:

The NRA has an annual operating budget of about $250M.  They do a lot more than donate to individual members of Congress.  Their real power is in how well they organize their members.

Now I am confused, the thread title is The NRA has now granted permission to the U.S. Govt to perform its duties.  
According to your last statement the NRA's power is in organizing their members. Being that their members are citizens, wouldn't that mean the citizens are allowing the government to do its job?  If the membership of the NRA have decided that something should be done, the regular anti-gunners should seize the moment and work with them.  Or would that be showing weakness on the part of the anti-gunners?  We have to make sure we keep that wedge driven between the left and right.

HeavyG

Dobie said:

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

80% of US citizens don't own a single gun.

But don't let that info slow down your Walter Mitty cosplay exercise.

DoubleEgger

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

I don't know about stopping terrorists, but law abiding gun owners shoot home invaders, car jackers, armed robbers all the time around Atlanta. Just turn on Channel 2 news any given day. 

Focker

Couldn't imagine one, or two, ISIS Focksticks walking into a church, ARs with bump stocks, and multiple 100 rd drums at the ready, having an entire congregation pinned off at the door.

Heard there were all kinds of metal detectors, smaller max bag sizes, and now emptying entire pocket contents at last night's Stapleton/Price concert.  Going to a concert is like going to the airport now.

TheToast

g8golfer said:

@Toast I’d rather live in the US and carry my gun and take my chances on a mass shooting happening rather the live in the UK and worry about not having a way to defend myself against a Muslim terrorist refugee roaming the street trying to blow me up. I guess you can throw rocks at the terrorist if you had to. 

PS: people that use guns the wrong way are bad it’s not the gun that is pulling the trigger 

I don't see how a gun will protect you from a bomb going off. 

The terrorist incident earlier this year in London which involved a van running people over, followed by the three terrorists running through a bar and stabbing people, claimed 8 lives. It took armed police 8mins from the first attack to the final of the three terrorists being shot and killed. Leave guns to the professionals to protect us.   I wouldn't feel safer if the stakes were evened and both terrorists and crowd were armed. 

'Good guys with guns' didn't help the situation in Las Vegas. How would you have defended yourself if you were in that crowd? You couldn't. Didn't it take the police over an hour just to locate him? He'd never have been able to kill and maim that many people with any other handheld weapon. 

g8golfer

Doesn’t it seem a little odd that the majority of the mass shooters are done by registered democratics. I love turning on the tv and seeing movie stars, singers, and tv personality’s tell me how I need to live my life. They live in mansions and fly private jets and have personal security. To be honest I hope they keeping doing it because that’s one reason democrats lost last Nov. 

Dobie

HeavyG said:

Dobie said:

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

80% of US citizens don't own a single gun.

But don't let that info slow down your Walter Mitty cosplay exercise.

Well that's just an estimate and pretty low one I think, other estimates are around a third but taking your number that's still over 50 million people and enough guns to arm the rest. How many ISIS fighters estimated did the damage they did? Turn tens of thousands of armed citizens against a tyrannical government and find a scenario that the govt doesnt destroy itself deafeating them. The govt would have to disarm the population first as has happened historically in other countries before the tyranny could control it. The US will never be disarmed. 

JohnInCarolina

https://twitter.com/theonion/status/916701176548208641

Woodchunk

http://eggheadforum.com/discussion/1140750/omg-bge-pop-corn