NRA a beast, according to NY Times.

[slzy]

klinkenborg seems to know as much about society as treadwell knew about bears.

 

[Marshall]

RealGun wrote:
Quote:
Crimes stopped by CCW holders.......#? - Marshall



Not my job to be a hero, especially an outgunned and dead one. The minute I start thinking I am a cop, I am looking for trouble. That's not to say I would stand idly by if confronted with a bad situation. Remember the guy with the CCW at the Texas court house shootout. There was a funeral for him, and he missed, shooting without cover. Brave, yes. Effective, no. I don't believe he was personally under a direct threat.

What would make a difference with crime is if armed citizens reached a critical mass and everyone knew it. A guy walks into a church service with an ugly rifle and 15 guys (or gals) draw down on him.

I don't think any of us want to be a dead hero. I was speaking of crimes being committed against a CCW holder. How many CCW holders have stopped a crime being committed against them. After all, that's the purpose of carrying, I believe.

 

[Owen]

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.

Sig-lined!!

 

[Helmetcase]

Heh--funny how they sometimes help our case more than they realize.

I had a good time taking this one to task and ripping Verlyn a new one. I didn't see his email address, but if you find it, post it up. I'd love to have him read this:

PGP rips the NYT editorial a new one.

 

[RealGun]

That, and I don't think you can deny any longer that there's plenty of anti-liberal vitriol being tossed around on this board. - Helmetcase

Making no excuse for over the top comments here, you better get used to it, because you have chosen to associate yourself politically with anti-gunners. Perhaps more of similar sentiment to yours need to do more to differentiate themselves from the left. At least 13 Democrat House members (GOA ratings) have been able to demonstrate in how they vote that they are seriously supportive of gun ownership, perhaps a plainer reading of the Constitution in general. I don't see where one can say that about a single Senator. It is just simply futile to try to impose a political correctness on THR that would give Democrats much of a break.

 

[Zundfolge]

NRA a beast, according to NY Times.

Hmm ... isn't that kind of like the pot calling the glass bowl black?

 

[Helmetcase]

Making no excuse for over the top comments here, you better get used to it, because you have chosen to associate yourself politically with anti-gunners.

The point I was trying to make is that some folks wanted to pretend it isn't there. Bunk.

It is just simply futile to try to impose a political correctness on THR that would give Democrats much of break.

I'm all in favor of not offering any quarter to those who'd take our rights away in a Quixotic attempt at achieving some false sense of "safety". And there's no request for PC on my part. Just pointing out the prevailing winds...

 

[the pistolero]

they should just rename it Pravda

I don't remember where I first saw it, but I have seen it called Pravda-on-Hudson or Pravda on the Hudson here and there.

 

[tuna]

Boy, when he started in on the library full of kids, I thought that he was going to start yapping about suppressors, too!

 

[SolaScriptura139]

or our ideas about the balance of individual and collective rights.

Whose ideas are that? I've never heard of a balance between the two. Last time I checked, the constitution only protected individual rights. The right to gather together isn't really a collective right, it's an individual right.

 

[Kim]

This guy worries about someone who has a permit to carry a firearm from the STATE being in a library with KIDS. But I would bet it would not bother him at all if that little KID got on the FREE SPEECH internet at the library and got hooked up with some hard core porn. After all FREE SPEECH is much more important than to allow filters on GOVERNMENT LIBRARY internet services.

 

[xd9fan]

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the “concealed carry” and “shall require” and “shoot first” laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the “concealed carry” law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Sometimes I still cant believe...even "americans" are this stupid and completly devoid of logic and human history. Words cant describe what I think and feel about this "man".

Guns ARE the litmus test.

 

[American By Blood]

So self-reliance is "insane" and "primitive" . . . the implication is that civilized and rational people want to be utterly dependent on the State for their own safety.

That, my friend, is pure wisdom.

Young urban liberals frighten me. It seems they judge a person solely on their degree of uselessness. Anyone who performs productive labor is a brute, bumpkin, or worse--while graphic designers and office drones with bloated record collections are tres chic.

To get any respect from the young urban liberal a person has to be completely effete and dependent. I know people who call me a redneck behind my back because I change my own oil and own guns. Apparently being the prep school educated son of two attorneys counts for naught when you occasionally smell like Hoppes or 10W-30.

 

[xd9fan]

So self-reliance is "insane" and "primitive" . . . the implication is that civilized and rational people want to be utterly dependent on the State for their own safety.

yep.. thats what it means to be.........Progressive!

 

[Igloodude]

The writer would probably wet his pants if he went to Vermont, another "socially progressive state".

 

[ProguninTN]

Not Again

Haven't we heard enough about how highly trained (yeah right) the NYPD is ?

What blood in the streets ?

I guess he'd rather the criminals be armed and rely on the police despite, them not having an obligation to protect him. :banghead:

Having I done enough preaching to the choir ,yet ?

ProguninTN

 

[Harley Quinn]

I don't understand it anymore, really

Why is it, the criminals have all the rights? What is wrong with this picture?

We are up the creek without a paddle for sure.

HQ

 

[Mr.V.]

But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain.

Fortunately this is an opinion, because he's going to have a hard time proving that this "civic bargain" exists...

The N.R.A. would argue that society has changed since those innocent days. But society hasn’t changed nearly as much as the N.R.A. has — or our ideas about the balance of individual and collective rights.

Is it his contention that gun-rights have become much less restrictive than in earlier American history when you could wear a gun in a holster by your side into the saloon?

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety.

more unfounded statements...

all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals

WOW...I've actually yet to see a statement from them this blatant. "Police Departments" have a manifest, non enumerated, right to arbitrarily deny individual citizens' rights? So the DMV shouldn't be forced to give me a Driver's License if I pass a test, because the DMV has rights like any other citizen to not be compelled by law to do something? It's so confusing to wrap the mind around. What "rights" do police departments have? Police officers certainly have rights...but departments? ????????????? so confused....

The criminals know they’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A.

Uhhhhh he KNOWS that drugs are banned, but millions of people have access to them! This argument is so intellectually bankrupt it hurts me to see it still argued.

gun laws that protect the rest of usp

and the moment he can find ANY credible evidence of this, we can have an intelligent debate.

 

[Knotthead]

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't that what our whole country is supposed to be about? Wasn't that the goal from July 4, 1776 on?