please,nra supporters support you fellow gun lovrs

[mooseboy84]

i find it somewhat ironic that were asking iraqis to turn over there weapons. then if they dont we march in and kill them. where is the NRA on this?

isnt this there greatest fear come true whats going on in fallujah? the us military asking to take away guns from people and if they dont they come and kill you. where is chartoln heston with his antique rifle? where are all the nra members? they need to go and help their comrades fight against the tyranny of the government taking away the guns from people. :(

[VXerick]

I think you have this wrong. As I understand it, they have asked for military type weapons be turned over. Not privately owned weapons used for self-defense.

I don't think theres's anything wrong with confiscating missile launchers, rockets and fully automatic weapons. These are not the same thing or in the same classification as a 22 cal. rifle or handgun or a 16 ga. shotgun.

[Osborn F Enready]

VXerick..... are you really Alec Baldwin 666?

Why do we have weapons in the U.S. promised in the Constitution?

America has ALREADY overstepped its bounds in government trying to limit our rights to ALL types of gun ownership.

Do you even know what is required to own, or operate a;

silencer, or sound suppressor?

automatic weapons, all types?

assault type rifles with large cap magazines?

I seriously doubt it if you still stick up for our gun control laws....

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Somehow I think vxerick can handle this one herself. I'll sit back and watch.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, VXerick..... are you really Alec Baldwin 666? Why do we have weapons in the U.S. promised in the Constitution? America has ALREADY overstepped its bounds in government trying to limit our rights to ALL types of gun ownership. Do you even know what is required to own, or operate a; silencer, or sound suppressor? automatic weapons, all types? assault type rifles with large cap magazines? I seriously doubt it if you still stick up for our gun control laws....

The Constitution promises me (or you) nothing. The Constitution belongs to the people (citizens). It grants rights that US citizens have with which to hold their government accountable.

Whether the government has overstepped its limits is moot. It will do what it wants because not enough people care to change it.

Never having found the need for a silencer or assault rifle or gun with a clip holding more than 9 shells, I can't logically comment on your question.

But if you are asking me if I agree with gun control laws, the answer is no.

But I don't agree with any laws that overturn what is the original intent of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). I think people are wrong to defend some aspects of those ten amendments, while wanting others to be nullified. In my mind, the US Constitution is the singularly most beautiful and comprehensive document ever written and none of it should be infringed to satisfy the desires of certain segments of the population.

Further Amendments have righted the errors in judgement that our founding fathers made because of the time period they came from. But there have previously been and still are attempts to add Amendments, which have nothing to do with our rights as citizens of the USA. Rights belong to the people (individuals), and the Constitution is meant to protect those rights. The government has no rights. Repeat: The rights belong to the people. That's the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy.

[mooseboy84]

yes they are the same kinds of weapons. i know a guy in north carolina that bought RPK machine gun a few months ago. no it is not AUTO, but this is the same sort of weaponry that the US wants to be turned over in iraq. there are also people in the US that would like to own military grade weapons if wernt for there not being available and the price being outrageous.


but the main question is where are the people that support gun rights for americans, but not for iraqis. and YES, they want iraqis to hand over all there weapons. a few months ago on millitary times they had an article talking about it.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, this has gotten too insane to sit back and watch.

What is with this sillines of applying our constitution to people that are not Americans? The constitution is not a set of guidelines for all humanity. Nor is it meant to be put across in pieces. The constitution is a document for a people that were willing to fight to aquire their freedom and rights, it does not apply to a people that sat by and watched while their government waged a war on the way of life of those that did.

Respect and rights are not inherent, they have to be earned. While I have nothing against the Iraqi people they have done nothing to earn that respect.

[Osborn F Enready]

VXerick said: "The Constitution promises me (or you) nothing. The Constitution belongs to the people (citizens). It grants rights that US citizens have with which to hold their government accountable.

Whether the government has overstepped its limits is moot. It will do what it wants because not enough people care to change it.

Never having found the need for a silencer or assault rifle or gun with a clip holding more than 9 shells, I can't logically comment on your question.

But if you are asking me if I agree with gun control laws, the answer is no."


I say: For one thing, I more than fully understand, what the constitution is, what its for, and who it limits, THANK YOU. That was not the issue.

The point being moot about government not being changed because "people don't care enough to change it" is partially right. The ones who care are hampered by the system designed to stem their voice, implemented by the two major parties in power for the last 154 years. The seeds of corruption are planted deep, and almost all seats of the house and senate are filled with Republicans or Democrats. They are the ones at fault for keeping this system oppressed from its original intent.

Not having the "need" to own or operate a suppressor or assault rifle, or a gun with a clip that holds more than 9 (?) shells does not keep you from addressing the point I was ASKING about. Do you know the cost of licensing, the restrictions, and the paperwork involved with being allowed to own a weapon the Fed deems restricted??? I don't expect you to know every letter of the laws, but do you at least know that there are LARGE prices to be paid for licensing and maintaining licensing, as well as the official "beaureucratic red tape." It is financially impossible for people with limited incomes to own or maintain these licenses, and is therefore "selective" in its issuance restrictions.

After all that, I am glad to see that you do not support the gun control laws that are currently on the books.


VXerick said: "But I don't agree with any laws that overturn what is the original intent of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). I think people are wrong to defend some aspects of those ten amendments, while wanting others to be nullified. In my mind, the US Constitution is the singularly most beautiful and comprehensive document ever written and none of it should be infringed to satisfy the desires of certain segments of the population."

I say: I agree 100%, but that is not the issue here. The statement I made was in reference to your statement about the war in Iraq, and you obviously seemed to be applying our constitution to their situation, which is not the case. If for some reason you think there are a large amount of "recreational shooters" in Iraq, that own .22 rifles, and shotguns, please enlighten me. That is what led me to believe your statement was referring to our Constitution.


VXerick said: "Further Amendments have righted the errors in judgement that our founding fathers made because of the time period they came from. But there have previously been and still are attempts to add Amendments, which have nothing to do with our rights as citizens of the USA. Rights belong to the people (individuals), and the Constitution is meant to protect those rights. The government has no rights. Repeat: The rights belong to the people. That's the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy."

I say: I am well aware of the situation with attempts being made to add new amendments based on rhetoric and faulty data, and that is a majority of my claim in other posts. I agree with all you say here, but it still does not address the issue presented in the thread starting topic.

What were you rebutting, just my accusation that you supported gun control?

[PhanthomOps]

Okay, I've read all the posts thusfar. I will respond by not directing my comments to any one individual,but in general.


The Second Amendment reads:

"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."

It is my understanding the original intent was because during that time we had just finished the Revolutionary War, and because we were a baby nation without the Armed Forces as we know today, there was still the possibility that England or any other country would attempt to invade and subjugate us to their rule. So therefore, we needed people to be armed for self preservation.

Throughout our history, this right has continued right up to the present.

Many people are afraid of guns, hate guns, and actively attempt to have those guns which are legally licensed taken away from gun owners.

They mistakenly attribute the fact that when a person is shot or killed by a gun, that the gun is at fault. They play on the fears of those who are afraid of and hate guns, in order to rally support for their own political agendas. Regretfully, however, with all the laws currently on the books, and those proposed, the issue of illegal guns has not effectively been addressed. Criminals are able to obtain all the weapons of any type and ammunition they want.

It is the person who kills, the gun is just the immediately available tool with which to perform their act, just as a knife, baseball bat, length of chain, pencil, pair of scissors, etc.

Now as to the NRA, of which I am an Endowment Life Member.

The NRA does fiercly fight for the right of individuals who have successfully passed a background check in accordance with their individual state's requirements. Nothing less and nothing more.

Let's consider the following facts:
1) The NRA does not perform background checks on individuals
2) The NRA does not issue licenses to individuals
3) The NRA does not sell guns to individuals

The NRA does:
1) have 3,000,000+ members
2) have 3,000+ of those members who are active in instructing individuals as to the proper use and responsibility of owning a gun, and the emotional and mental conditions when using deadly force should it be necessary.
3) have a massive training program for Law Enforcement Officers whether they be city, county, state or federal in position.
4) have training programs for young people so that they will be aware of the consequences of using a gun.


The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution apply only to the United States of America and its' territories.

The necessity of our soldiers in the field to confiscate weapons is to:
1) reduce the possibility of our military personnel from further being killed, maimed or wounded.
2) bring peace and stability to the Iraqui people, so that they can establish a safe environment in which to live

It is, has been and will always be the intent of an armed force, after an armed conflict, no matter from what country they are from, to disarm the inhabitants of the country in which they are stationed

[VXerick]

Originally posted by mooseboy84, but the main question is where are the people that support gun rights for americans, but not for iraqis. and YES, they want iraqis to hand over all there weapons. a few months ago on millitary times they had an article talking about it.

I suspect from the military's point of view, it's better for their soldiers, if civilians are unarmed.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Guns, and the right to bare them is a great thing about America.

My question is, when will the average joe wake up and realize all these so called gun control laws do nothing to detter crime and just increase it?

[PhanthomOps]

VXerick:
Quote - "I suspect from the military's point of view, it's better for their soldiers, if civilians are unarmed."

Yes it is, I felt much safer knowing that I only had the enemy to worry about and not the civilians as well - I was able to concentrate much better and nor jump at every little noise.


Mr.Vicchio:
Quote - "Guns, and the right to bare them is a great thing about America. My question is, when will the average joe wake up and realize all these so called gun control laws do nothing to detter crime and just increase it?"

Excellent point - regretfully, I believe it will take an unfortunate incident in their personal life to wake-up. Perhaps, a criminal with a gun breaking into their home, raping their wife, mother, sister, or daughter - and realizing after, that had he had a weapon he could have acted to prevent it.

Also, when they consider that the "no-gun" laws enacted in England, Austrailia, etc. ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO EFFECT BUT TO GIVE THE CRIMINAL FREEDOM BEYOND RESTRAINT.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by mooseboy84, i find it somewhat ironic that were asking iraqis to turn over there weapons. then if they dont we march in and kill them. where is the NRA on this? isnt this there greatest fear come true whats going on in fallujah? the us military asking to take away guns from people and if they dont they come and kill you. where is chartoln heston with his antique rifle? where are all the nra members? they need to go and help their comrades fight against the tyranny of the government taking away the guns from people. :(

I couldnt agree more. I'm a life member and I agree that we are majorly blowing on this one, a real cluster f*ck. The reason is that some of our more cautious leaders are afraid that the leftys will say that we are "once again" (as if to say gun show support is our "already" because they are supposedly gun bazzars for rag heads) supporting terrorist activities. I believe it was Violence Policy Center that said the NRA was possibly responsible for 9-11 because our resistance to gun control and stalling "progress" was why the terrorists had weapons on the airplanes. Of course, then somebody said "Hey, I thought they used box cutters!" And he looked like he was either really f*ckin stupid or like he planned on going so far as to ban things such as pedicure tools. So the people who would use our opposition to say "not only are they helping the terrorists get the guns (even though in reality, they are not getting their guns at legal gun shows and sending them home, when it is far easier to just get everything from light machine guns to fighter planes and missles of various types on the black market), now they don't want the soldiers to take them away either."

The problem is this: The leftys refuse to accept reality (none of the weapons have been confiscated in Iraq came from an American gun show, not a single one, and the vast majority would not have been at one anyway) and they refuse to even consider the possibility that an Iraqi could be neither military, police, criminal or terrorist, and still have use for an assault rifle.

I do agree that we should not allow Joe-hued Al-Schmoe Material de Quicky Mart to have a rocket launcher or support type weapon (mono/bi/tri-pod fired machine gun ect.), but confiscating shoulder fired small arms and handguns is bullshit.

[PhanthomOps]

Quote: Mr.Vicchio
"Guns, and the right to bare them is a great thing about America.
My question is, when will the average joe wake up and realize all these so called gun control laws do nothing to detter crime and just increase it?"

Quote: bugsbunny04
"The problem is this: The leftys refuse to accept reality (none of the weapons have been confiscated in Iraq came from an American gun show, not a single one, and the vast majority would not have been at one anyway) and they refuse to even consider the possibility that an Iraqi could be neither military, police, criminal or terrorist, and still have use for an assault rifle."

The major problem is that the majority of the civilian population are not owners of weapons, have no idea of what it means to those of us who do. The attitude of a high number of these is since it hasn't adversely affected them personally - they just don't care, and it's not worthy of their consideration.

So the effect is simply that these laissez-faire, acquensent, appeasment minded (don't oppose it and it won't harm you), Democratic wimps and liberals are out there beating the drums of doom. Regretfully, the masses do not challenge the stand of their political leaders, and so the drums beat on, get publicity, and front page exposure, which gives the illusion that this is the opinion of all Americans.

So, the bottom line is that the Americans who fiercly support the Second Amendment need to bury their elected officials through the mail, emails and phone calls with their disaproval, and inform them that they will do all in their to prevent them from being reelected.

Additionally, for those elected officials of which there are quite a number, who fight for our rights, we need to let them know how much we support them.

The members of the NRA who are voting members must vote for those NRA Directors who will fight for our Constitutional rights. Additionally, to educate and enter into respectful debate with those whom they come in contact with as to the benefits, to and the reality of what the NRA actually does.

Therefore, the responsibility rests with the individual and their action or lack thereof.

[PatrickHenry]

The Second Amendment is to counter the likelihood of government tyranny. Citizens should have possession of any weapons that might be brought against them by a tyrannical government in order to be able to resist. Washington DC is evil. They want to rob and kill you. You have a right to defend yourself against them. ALL WEAPONS TO THE PEOPLE NOW!
http://www.free-market.net/directorybycate.../homepages/T10/

[PhanthomOps]

PatrickHenry:

Hi, how are you doing ???

Is your statement aimed at insurrection or revolution??

[dotcoma]

Self defense.

[PhanthomOps]

roxdog,

I know that is where PatrickHenry was going in his comment - I just wanted him to say so.

In-as-much as I agree, thank you for your confirmation :) :)

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, PatrickHenry: Hi, how are you doing ??? Is your statement aimed at insurrection or revolution??

``Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.''
-John F. Kennedy, 1962

[PhanthomOps]

Yo PatrickHenry,

Hello again - how's the weather in Aloha Land??

Okay - that makes sense - but at what point does it commence?

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn.

"Our strength lies in spiritual concepts. It lies in public sensitiveness to evil. Our greatest danger is not from invasion by foreign armies. Our dangers are that we may commit suicide from within by complaisance with evil, or by public tolerance of scandalous behavior." President Herbert Hoover.