The N.R.A. Is Naming Names

[PrudentGT]

Was doing a quick search to try and figure out what the deal was with IMI's M855SB .223 round, and without thinking clicked on what looked like a promising link. Well, after the 404 error I looked more closely and it was actually a page at 'vpcenter.org.' It occurs to me that VPC has a hitlist of its own...

 

[jsalcedo]

The anti gunners have their own lists.

What is good for them is evil when the opposition does it.

This writer is an ignorant lowlife and deserves no more attention than any other NYT blathering mouthpiece.

 

[twoblink]

but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms.

Yeah.. I think the King of England thought the same.. Someone send the idiot a history book..

If might makes right, how you end up with a totalitarian state is arm only the soldiers and police, and what's the word I'm looking for? GESTAPO.. Never mind, I remembered. I just don't need to hear "Where are your papers?" Everytime I have to cross a state border, that's all.

Right to life, and right to safety and security within my own house.. That to me demonstrates a "good reason for having firearms".

 

[Moparmike]

All of the groups and individuals listed are supposed to be anti-gun. I can't speak for the Kansas City Chiefs or Moon Zappa, but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.

The N.R.A. sees this as a radical, even lunatic position.

And they would be right.

Thumbs thru Oleg's work for appropriate image......Ah, here it is.

and

Only the trained should have rights, correct? Only those trained by the government should be allowed to exercise those rights because the government knows better, correct? Or those who have a good reason, like expressing pro-government and non-controversial views and news. Yup, gotta love the slippery slope of regulation "logic".