Many of the "leaders" (a.k.a. politicians) of the American left seem to have a problem with the NRA, because the NRA knows and is very vocal about the fact that those politicians (including the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Caroline McCarthy (D-NY), Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, John Kerry, Carl Levin, et al) have always tried to disarm law-abiding American citizens. Go to the NRA website for their ratings "A" to "F" on U.S. politicians. Those who haven't done this and think that their lawfully owned guns are safe from confiscation may be in for an ugly surprise.
California has outlawed and seized a variety of personal small arms, after assuring citizens that this would not happen.
Mayor Nagin of New Orleans has never returned the guns he seized during and after Hurricane Katrina. He is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and in contempt of two federal court orders. Those guns will NEVER be returned to their rightful owners.
McCarthy put her own name on an attempt to reinstate and expand upon the oppressive "Clinton gun ban", although you can be pretty sure who is actually pulling the strings.
Kerry, trying to pass himself off as a hunter to get the sportsmen's votes, posed with the exact model Remington shotgun that he was (and still is) trying to ban.
Kennedy wanted to put a thousand percent tax on all ammunition, to force hunters and target shooters to give up their sport.
Feinstein simply said "...Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in".
There are probably about as many law-abiding sportsmen, collectors, law enforcement officers, home owners and small business owners in the Democratic party and the NRA as there Republicans in their party and the NRA, and they have the same reasons to want to be able to keep their lawfully held firearms or to buy another one when they feel like it. These Democrats and Independents need to weigh these facts before they decide how to cast their votes. As much as each of them may want to be a loyal party member, there are times to use your brain, and maybe even split your vote in favor of those who aren't trying to take away your right to own and bear firearms under the Second Amendment.
2007-10-10 10:50:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by senior citizen 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
I saw Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine."
What infuriated Michael was how Heston came to cities the day after a fatal incident involving the killing(s) with the use of a gun.
Heston didn't have the decency to wait at least a week while victims grieve, but no, he had to come in right away because that was his job requirement as President of the NRA.
2007-10-10 10:18:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Michael M 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
the protection concern could be completed for lots much less, only have instructors, directors, janitors, coaches volunteer to be knowledgeable to the two carry hid weapons or to get entry to an armory in each and every college, the region might pay greater advantageous, yet no longer an entire income of a protection shelter. Criminally insane, won't comprehend the place the resistance will come from! yet there does no longer be a secure haven the place they could kill until ultimately the police get there!
2016-10-21 23:04:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The thousands of accidental deaths, and injuries caused by weapons that aren't kept under lock and key. The guns that get stolen from decent people and then used in armed robberies, the daily death toll from school shooters, only one so far today in Cleveland. Then there is the fact that the NRA is unwilling to do anything to stem the tide, not sales registration, or anything.
I am not for gun control, its too late for that, there are too many guns on the streets for us to put the genie back in the bottle. But I do think that automatic weapons and bullets made to maximize damage to flesh aren't needed.
Every day, in every part of the country the local papers relate an injury or fatality from guns falling into the wrong hands or being stolen, or used in other crimes, the NRA needs to recognize this and think of constructive ways it can end the destruction.. just thinking they should be able to get all the guns they can isn't enough.
And yes, I'm a Democrat who owns a gun or three.
2007-10-10 10:15:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by justa 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
Two words: "Ted", and "Nugent". How can any group who has this bozo as a spokesperson/official be taken seriously?
How can one take seriously an organization that practically defends the right of every American to own an RPG launcher?
How many more Americans must die because of the over-the-top lack of any legitimate gun control in this country? Jesus H. Christ, doesn't anyone remember Virginia Tech?
How does anyone explain the tiny fraction of gun-related crime, in comparison to the United States, of every other developed nation in the world?
And, how many times does one read about a homeowner successfully "defending" him or herself against a home invasion? It's far more likely that one's gun will be stolen and employed to commit a crime than it is to actually defend one's self!
As for the Constitution: I have absolutely no problem whatever with the right of every American to own a muzzle-loader. Do you people really think the founding fathers had assault weapons in mind when they wrote that?
2007-10-10 10:29:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The debate over gun ownership is centered on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons. They point to incidents such as the Columbine high school massacre in April 1999, which resulted in the deaths of 14 students (including the two gunmen) and a teacher, in support of banning assault weapons. They also support measures intended to curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun, limits on the number of guns a person can buy and raising the age limit for gun ownership.
Gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, argue that these and other proposals infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. They maintain that bans on the sale of certain types of weapons have not proved effective in reducing violent crime, and that proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are designed to eliminate gun shows themselves. Some gun manufacturers have volunteered support for safety locks, but the NRA has criticized safety locks for placing an undue burden on gun manufacturers without a proven benefit to the public.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/
My feelings are mixed.
I know people from Montana....
Dad was a hunter.
They learned to hunt.
They can handle guns.
My Sister owns a couple of handguns....she is a drunk...
she passes out and leaves loaded weapon on bed.
She had child in the house.
I never owned a gun.
I was a drunk.
I did not want to wake up in jailcell with no recollection of the bar shooting.
I harbor suicidal ideations.
I might have put a bullet in my head when drinking.
I see the gun control stance as having more merit.
I know people that live out in the middle of nowhere or have to travel long distances by car.
If I were in their shoes I would consider having a weapon with me.
Never know what is going to happen on the road.
I live in Seattle.
been here since 1989.
At no time did I feel I NEEDED a weapon.
BUT
if that time ever arrived I would sure like to be able to get my hands on one for self defense.
So
call me AMBIVALENT
re MICHEAL MOORE....
is there anybody left in HOLLYWOOD that is NOT mentally ill?
add; Worked with guy at Security company in New Jersey years ago...an alarm company.
He was talking about getting 357.
I told him that when he gets the gun ..take it to gunsmith and have the front sight ground off gun...
get it as smooth as possible....
when he asked why...
I told him...
"So when someone sticks it up your *** it won't hurt as much."
He was a person that had no business owning a gun.
2007-10-10 10:34:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by zes2_zdk 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Isn't Michael Moore a member of the NRA?
2007-10-10 10:11:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Because NRA supports losers like Bush, who put our country in jeopardy. Foreigners hate us, yet our jobs go to those haters. Go figure. The NRA blows, anyway.
2007-10-10 12:31:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm glad there are organizations like the NRA and ACLU that occassionally stand up for actual rights in the process of perpetuating thier own existence and pushing thier own agendas.
2007-10-10 10:16:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Assault weapons and Armour piercing rounds. that is where I disagree with NRA. Deer don't have body Armour, and if you can't hit one on the first shot 50 more won't help. I shot in competition for years and own many guns but I can't support NRA any longer.
2007-10-10 10:22:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋