Those NRA people, they do look like a convention of village idiots.
2006-10-06 06:53:01 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There is a very high nutter quotient in the USA. People think that if they have a gun, this will protect them against the nutters.
2006-10-06 07:02:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
By the statements you are making, it is obvious that you are profiling a large number of people by your own impression of a small group. They are pretty much representative of the population of this country, most of whom are average people. If you want to do a study with results that fit into your narrow minded perspective, I think you need to see what the next Armed Robbers Convention members look like. Maybe they will be a Little more attractive than the NRA members.
2006-10-06 14:01:40 · answer #2 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am proud to be a card carrying nra member and would defend my country. In the state that I live in we are allowed to protect ourselves at all costs when in fear for our life. See how you talk when you are staring out the window when someone wants to carjack you . I bet you would be the 1 st one to scream and run away . No sir the government can have my gun when they pry from my cold dead fingers. You have got to be an aussie or a brit where your government does not think you ppl are sane enough to make your own decisions about your own property . Give me a break.
2006-10-06 14:04:49 · answer #3 · answered by Kate T. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, an inverse correlation exists between legal gun ownership and lack of intelligence.
And there exists a positive correlation between hysterical emotionalism and proclivity for gun-control.
2006-10-06 14:13:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. Anyone who would prefer an armed government with a disarmed civilian population are morons. Especially in big cities, local, state and federal governments are attempting to disarm the people. Only chaos would exist should this happen. Fact is, the citizenry far outnumber the police, military and any special forces therein. Should any anti-American force land in America, the citizenry, and all its guns, would jump in and fight to the death...unless of course, the USG took away all your weapons. Fact is, in my city, NYC, it is hard as hell to get a carry license. Hence, only the cops and bad guys have guns....and sometimes the cops are the bad guys.
2006-10-06 13:58:45 · answer #5 · answered by irish_american_psycho 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think everybody should be given a gun at birth,then we could all protect ourselves and do away with the police,suppose might lead to a few needless deaths but must be the way forward....lets follow America's lead..long live the NRA
2006-10-06 15:05:22 · answer #6 · answered by notgnal 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i can tell from your comment you feel above everyone else! do you even know what that amendment to the constitution is for? i can assume you are that stupid and don't understand it at all..it is in place so the government cant rise up against the people,plain and simple! it is so the average citizen can protect themselves and family,from the government! i agree with all of the checks and balances they have in place now for the purchase of a gun..people have the right to own guns period..if i would have to call a cop to come to my house for protection it would take 15 minutes! no i like my gun handy that way if anyone would try to break in i have the right to use force..you want me to hit them with a loaf of bread!they come here they can call the fire department to hose them off my porch! i love how you put everyone in a bread basket as the next Columbine extremist if they own a gun..you show allot of ignorance,but i bet your cool with sucking babies out in pieces and smashing there bones for your face cream huh? typical hypocrite and uninformed liberal who would change the constitution right?
2006-10-06 14:05:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, good point. This came up in my Law class, half of the students said that they have the right to protect themselves with guns while the other half had said that carrying guns is a sign of hostility towards others and is inappropriate for a social enviorment. who is right?
2006-10-06 14:00:25 · answer #8 · answered by Yunxgen N 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course there would be less violence if there were no guns, but lets imagine what would happen if guns were outlawed. Who would have guns? People who break the law. Who wouldn't? People who obey the law.
No way that could go wrong.
2006-10-06 14:02:21 · answer #9 · answered by ihatehippies 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Those who don't own guns are seriously lacking in intelligence, understanding, and a number of other things.
2006-10-06 13:57:46 · answer #10 · answered by Spud55 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just look at The USA, Guns for all and very few grey cells. Look at the idiot you have for a president. You knew what you were getting when you voted. In Britain were thought we knew but he was lying.
2006-10-06 14:15:23 · answer #11 · answered by Ashley K 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋