They may think they need it but that’s not happening.
If they had the means to resist don’t you think they would ?
It’s just irrelevant either way. If they had the means they may, but China’s military will crush them as they’ve already warned. Best they go back to work, immigrate elsewhere if they’re unhappy.
That’s what I said … you blamed the NRA.
That’s what I said; you only support him when it’s convenient to your argument.
That doesn’t mean they don’t need it, and that’s why they will lose. Deja Vu Tianamen Square.
I blame the law makers for the law but proved to you that the NRA is a gun lobby and uses their powerful platform to influence law makers. So, the NRA needs to return to its original platform and motto which had nothing to do with 2nd amendment, and a return to the days when they supported common sense gun regulation.
The original Motto:
“Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.”
They will not be getting it, even if they do foolishly think it would protect them from the powerful PLA.
And you can’t do those things without guns. What’s your point?
I made my point clear, IN THAT POST. Not my fault that you ignored it.
Anyway, there’s been trouble brewing at the NRA for sometime, and maybe it will be for the good in time.
Which is exactly why we fight so vigorously against any attempt to limit or rght to keep and bear arms. Once the population is disarmed, they will never be capable of standing up to oppression by the government. That lesson has been repeated around the world many times over the last two centuries. And don’t think that it could not happen here as well.
Oh there’s no mystery to your efforts, they’re just vain. For one, as mass shootings continue to increase, more and more Americans will support increasing restrictions, but more importantly, you’ll never take on your own government with any success whatsoever. Though so many of you clearly have a morbidly romantic fascination with the notion, and the thought of fighting to the death gets your testosterone flowing, it’s a wholly unrealistic enterprise.
When you cut through the BS, the 2nd Ammendment is about the right to bear arms, not the right to bear only certain arms. The LEFTISTS know what infringement is because they are infringing their opinions on law ABIDING people while not having a clue what an assault weapon is. Now they use the term " assault style" weapons.
When we begin to use crossbows and bows and arrows will.they want to ban them???
Most people don’t believe that and support restrictions on them. Even the NRA historically supported firearms restrictions.
In the 1920’s, the National Revolver Association (am arm of the National Rifle Association) responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.
The NRA supported both the 1934 and 1938 firearms acts, and the 1968 firearms act, though they lobbied against (and prevailed) a national registration.
And a host of other things.
Now think really hard before answering.
How much recreational shooting will there be if the democrats succeed in disarming us?
No, 2/3 of those polled support such a ban.
Anytime you believe you have enough support, by all means start your drive to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Military’s that aren’t hobbled by civilian leadership become a whole other problem…
If the civilian leadership is using the military to deprive us of our rights there is no difference in the two.
Now you see why the founding fathers didnt support the popular vote to elect the President and Vice President.
Its funny how some on the left blames the N.R.A for the recent shootings, how is it the N.R.A’s fault?
I have noticed the more the shootings the more people on the left want gun control or harsher gun control.
All we have to do is look at the UK, Australia, Canada as example of gun control legislation enacted because of a mass shooting
What exactly did that accomplish? less mass shootings? yes
But increased gun crimes
does that not count?
Leftists say the mass shootings are virtually eliminated? yes that is true
but gun homicides still exists, the UK has the highest acid attacks and stabbings too
Australia still had mass shootings, lots of stabbings
Canada rarely has mass shootings, but has a lot of shootings, I can cite an CBC article that shows gun shooting crimes on the rise
excerpt
In a report released Wednesday, the agency said there were 660 reported homicides in Canada last year.
Not only was that an increase of nearly eight per cent from 2016, it also pushed up the homicide rate to 1.8 victims for every 100,000 people — the highest since 2009.
And leftist tells us gun control is the answer?
The second amendment exists to protects our pre existing right to bear arms, its for the government not to infringe on our rights that already exists, it doesn’t give us permission to bear arms
UK, Australia, Canada have never had enough mass shootings to show that any gun laws passed since those events have had any statistical effect.
Legal gun ownership levels in the UK and Australia has never been more than a fraction of that of the US either.
Why is it the left only focuses on countries quite dissimilar to ours on the otherside of the world instead of comparing us to the rest of hour hemisphere?
How well have draconian gun laws in the rest of north, central and south America worked out?
The two countries with the lowest homicide rates in the new world are the US and Canada.
Giving up your rights over emotional events is just stupid.