Share Button

NRA-logo

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to our own research Second Amendment Check has decided it is worth sharing the work of others.  Therefore, we are sharing the NRA-ILA’s lists of:

“Anti-Gun National Organizations”

“Anti-Gun Corporations/Corporate”

“Anti-Gun Publication and Media Outlets”

“Anti-Gun Individuals & Celebrities”

At Second Amendment Check we always attempt to source our material in our quest to provide objective and credible information.  Again, these lists have been compiled by the NRA-ILA, whom we recognize as a credible source of information.  Having said that, the exact criteria for making it onto the list are unclear, and the claims of being “Anti-Gun” have not been independently verified or validated by Second Amendment Check.

Also, after having had these lists published on their public website for many months, they have been removed after receiving some recent attention in the alternative media.  As noted in the Feb 11, 2013 update in this this Huffington Post article, the NRA-ILA has quietly removed the list from their website, but it can still be found in a web archive from January.  The reason for the removal of this list is not yet known.  Speculation suggests that the NRA ILA didn’t want to call unwanted attention to itself, or perhaps that it is reassessing or updating that list.  Second Amendment Check will attempt to get to the bottom of this mysterious disappearance.

NRA ILA List of Anti’s:

 

519 Comments

  1. Suzanne Williams

    Again, thanks for the list showing me where, and to whom I should ardently support, Second Amendment Check!! I will share this with all the other anti gun folks I know, and ask them to pass it on as well. Have a nice day.

    Reply

    • “Oh, my period came three days early… Damn you, NRA!”

      “I drove off with the gas spout still in my gas tank and broke the pump! Damn you, NRA!”

      “My husband left me for the younger, more beautiful woman next door. Damn you, NRA!”

      You people are full of blame for an organization that is standing up for the civil rights of the citizens of this country – that includes you! Not once have you laid blame where it belongs – squarely on the shoulders of the thugs pulling the triggers.

      And here you show your true colors… those of a terrorist. Trolling a website just because it advocates an opinion other than your own.

      Thanks for the proof that liberals are, by far, the least intelligent of the political groups in this country.

      Reply

      • Kyew, AMEN!!! I never fired a gun, but even I know that a person has the God-given right to defend themselves. Besides it is inherently said, in the Declaration of Independence, LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. One must be able to defend themselves from being killed or severely hurt. My parents served in the Air Force, and they own guns. Gun Control will only harm the law-abiding citizen. The only thing, a dictator needs to have complete control over its people is take away the people’s claws (i.e. Guns). Then that dictator now has open season to nick-pick rights to take away. We are the only country that its Constitution states that its people can own a gun. For crying out loud, it was the local farmers and townspeople who grabbed their muskets and went out to Lexington green in 1775. Not the Army regulars, besides the Continental Army after the fact, was mainly militia. It wasn’t until 1777-78, that the Continental Army, started to act and dress like a real professional army. All these gun crimes that happen, usually happen in gun free cities. I’m a History major and I love learning about the American Revolution. Yet, these people still advocate for more gun control, the San Bernardino shooting was in a gun free zone, the culprits used illegal weapons. To get rid of guns, you might as well, ban cars, knives, forks, pencils and everything known to be created, because somehow and someway, these objects can be a weapon to hurt or kill people. Usually these gun grabbers, have a dismal knowledge of history. Remember before guns, there was a time when swords, bow and arrows were considered the tools to kill somebody for more than millennia. Cain killed Abel with a rock, so again its not a gun problem, its a heart or morality problem.

        Reply

    • I am ashamed to call you a female like myself. You hide behind liberal idealogies and cannot think for yourself because of all the male machismo testosterone on this site and obviously are a sheepel as the other libs showing out. It’s a shame as a female like me that you never used the brain you were given. Our country was built on the constitution and the rights our forefathers fought to get for us. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms (to be sure our gov does not have tyranny started) and so on but how can I believe that you understand the constitution or other documents related to the freedoms that we have because you are living like the Wizard of Oz —- “If I only had a brain”……..

      Reply

      • Larry is a kid, maybe high school. But that’s offensive to a lot of very intelligent high schoolers. If you can’t support your views without factual support, you view is unsubstantiated. If you want people to take you seriously, answer the questions that have been posed to you and not just insult or say someone is wrong. It is mindless to not do your due diligence and research before cementing yourself into a particular view.

        Reply

        • I have done a lot of research. You are in complete denial of the facts and like others hide behind “wah, wah, wah…I’m not going to listen to anyone else…I’ll just say I don’t believe you and bury my head in the ground”. The facts overwhelmingly support gun control as the primary means of curbing gun violence, gun deaths and mass shootings. It is not incumbent upon me to back up everything I say with fact checking when the statistics in support of gun control are EVERYWHERE. Get a clue. Drop your gun-hugging emotions and open your eyes.

          Reply

          • Paul Colapietro

            I’m just a lil curious right now . What are you going to do when Trump is president??? Obama care will go out the window which I’m sure you were in total support for. All the executive orders about gun control will be taken away. You say gun control,gun control. What would you do if they started infringing on freedom of speech too? Once you start on one they will go after another one of our freedom’s. It’s called a domino effect. As a wiseman said the “The tree of liberty has to be refreshed from time to time” Thomas Jefferson. But don’t worry Trump will bring this country back(Strong,respected,no more weakness)

          • Do you seriously believe Donald Trump will be president??? The Democrats are drooling over the thought of running against him. He may win the Republican nomination but that’s not saying much given he crowd of bible thumping idiots on that stage. It does say a lot about how bigoted our nation still is…or perhaps just the republicans. One thing is for sure…if Trump is on the Republican ticket for Presiden, our country will witness the largest voter turnout in history because so many people in both parties despise him and his positions so visciously that they will run to the polls to simply vote against him.

          • Paul Colapietro

            As usual you avoid whatever questions I give you and you banter about one thing. What will you do? (Remember domino effect)

          • “The facts overwhelmingly support gun control as the primary means of curbing gun violence, gun deaths and mass shootings.”

            No. They do not. The facts that you acknowledge may support gun control as the primary means of curbing gun violence. What about all of the facts you still fail to acknowledge, even after dozens of intelligent people have presented a distinct problem with the idea of gun control and regulations?
            Your problem; is that you oversimplify the outcome of your ideal solution in theory, and over-complicate anyone else’s ideas. If I were you, I’d get your narcissism looked at, it may be hindering you in other areas of your life as well.
            You have dozens of comments on this article, Larry. Some of your comments contradict others. For example, you’ve represented yourself as preferring “absolutely no guns” as the solution, and when refuted you’ve back-pedaled and sighted the idea of just making them less available. When confronted with a serious problem to your idea, you’ve either completely ignored the issue, attacked another person’s style of writing, or character, or led yourself into the most presumptuous passage of what you think would happen. “If Thomas Jefferson knew this….he would be against it too” calling yourself the modern day Thomas Jefferson.
            You don’t know Thomas Jefferson, or anything about him other than what went down in history. You lack the basic reasoning skills and common human decency to get a thousand people to follow you as you lead, and you damn sure don’t have any regard for the possible consequences of your ideas. Instead you keep that chip on your shoulder, telling you that you are right and that you have considered everything, when it is obvious to everybody watching that you ignore all opposing logic without any consideration.
            You are a person driving down the road drunk telling everybody that you are not drunk, yet all we do is see you swerving on and off the road. I think you should concede and maybe go take a trip abroad to get a grip on the realities you surely haven’t faced in your lifetime.
            Head over to the middle east for a bit. Maybe take a course in manufacturing so you could understand how impossible it would be to stop guns from being manufactured. Take a course in criminal law, or visit a prison so you can understand how well criminals follow rules. Go to a rural area where each house is 5 miles apart, and call the cops. Take note of how long it takes for them to arrive. Go to my house, in my un-gated community and try to cause harm to my family or steal my property, and watch how quickly you fail.

  2. It never fails to amaze me how eager you idiots are to prove to everyone around you that you are, in fact, idiots.

    No downside to banning guns? Tell that to police officers who use them every day to save lives.

    What makes you think you have the right to take anything away from anyone? Fact is, you don’t. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you’ll stop sounding like an even smaller Napoleon than the original.

    Everyone has the right to possess weapons. Or are you saying you’re willing to cut off everyone’s hands and feet just so you feel “safe”? You really have a serious issue with fear.

    Good luck repealing the Second Amendment. You morons have been trying to do that for decades. You’ve never even come close. But keep dreaming. It keeps your wine-sodden brains preoccupied with delusions of grandeur.

    Reply

    • They came pretty close in the last Supreme Court hearing. Kyew, whoever you are…keep talking, keep fighting the good fight to protect our freedoms, remain calm and concise and spread this message before a grave mistake is made that will retrospectively be known as the worst mistake in American History. It will be very clear to them why the 2nd Amendment is so important if they manage to abolish or amend. Until then, work hard to be heard. Thank you for having a brain. Less cuss words, though. Just a suggestion.

      Reply

      • Nah… less swearing only means they’ll think I’m trying to be reasonable. I like them to think I’m very unreasonable, that way they’ll try to appear reasonable and argue with me logically. And when they do that, they’re screwed. There truly is no logical argument against gun ownership.

        And they know it.

        It must suck for them to claim to be the “intelligent” half of the political dichotomy, only to find their arguments being refuted so easily by so many people on the other side of the aisle.

        Take care.

        Reply

  3. Let’s make our entire country gun free. Give the terrorist more places to strike. Places of work churches schools military bases aren’t enough. Nobody needs the right to defend themselves. Just get shot. Lay in a puddle of your blood as you die. The police will be there in 5 to 30 minutes.

    Reply

  4. We’ve just scratched the surface on gun laws. We need a full on ban on all guns. Why not…since there is absolutely no downside. It’s not like we’re taking away food or something. Just taking away dangerous toys from adults that still act like children. No one has the right to possess weapons…and if there is continued confusion about his we will simply repeal the second amendment.

    And “God bless..”??? No such thing. Please spend as much time praying as possible…it does nothing and will keep you indoors with your deadly toys longer which helps the rest of us.

    Reply

  5. Paul Colapietro

    Hmm. What’s next. Ban, ban, pass another law lose more of our rights. More gun legislation, more this, more that. What’s next go after our freedom of speech??? If someone says go left. There will be someone that says go right. You can never make everyone happy. Remember our fore-fathers and what they stood for & fought for. This is why we have what we have. Do I need to remind everyone 9/11. How we had some son of a bi$&@es dancing in the street when that happened. We have all these secret cells all around us. How will we he people defend ourselves. We have to face this rule and that law etc; while they play without any rules or laws. So tell me – I won’t say names if you had one of those people in front of you setting a WMD, or something to that effect and the police couldn’t get there. What would you do? Tell them to stop. Tap them with a stick? Ask them why are you doing this? Beg them to stop!! What would you do? I know what I would do since I have a full carry permit. People remember the flag and what it stands for. Stop using the media’s interpretation of things to be actually true. They are a business and will do whatever it takes to make you watch them or read there paper. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    Reply

    • Gov Kasich and Kroger co. DONT SUPPORT VETS!!!#COMBATVETSLIVESMATTER

      This is HOW a Combat Vets been Treated when he Tried to Exercise FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!
      PLZ Sign
      change.org/p/potus-all-congress-combat-vets-lives-matter?recruiter=278863106&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive … … … … … … … … … …

      Reply

  6. Wow. To all readers of this blog…I think we’ve found our next shooter. Let’s lock this guy up before he takes out a pre-school.

    Reply

  7. You stop killing people by making it nearly impossible for them to have a firearm to protect themselves from thugs who don’t obey the laws that you think will solve everything.

    And we most certainly do have the right to protect ourselves. This was confimed already by the SCOTUS. Apparently, you need to update your paradigm.

    Reply

  8. Okay I have a question. I see Sprint on this list, are you kidding me? Sprint? The major sponsor of NASCAR that Sprint…. Oh the irony.

    Reply

  9. Thank you NRA for posting this handy shopping list – how convenient!

    Reply

  10. You have no such right. Keep killing innocent people and you will understand that soon enough.

    Reply

  11. Laszlo Toth, Jr.

    TL;DR — Boycott America.

    {sigh}

    How typical of the Blame America First wing of the Republican Party.

    Reply

  12. Haha. The jokes on you. This county is based on free speech and it’s important to being sensibility right to the source. Education is the key and I will help bring you out if he caves.

    Reply

    • This country was founded on individual freedom, not just freedom of speech. That includes the freedom to protect ourselves. You know, the Second Amendment? The one right after the one you’re crowing about?

      What “individual freedom” means is, if I want to protect my family, I’m free to do so, and if you want you and your family to be victims, you’re free to do so.

      What it doesn’t mean is you’re free to take my rights from me.

      Reply

  13. Incoherent ramble. The problem is broad access to guns and the NRA is the primary impediment to solving the problem. It’s Unbelievable that members of the NRA continue to bury their heads in the sand and think they can’t be seen. Get a clue.

    Reply

    • Yeah, “broad access to guns”, like they have in California? Semi-auto “assault rifles” are banned. High capacity magazines are banned. It’s a “may issue” state, which means you’re very unlikely to obtain a license to carry a firearm concealed. Minimum ten day waiting period to purchase a firearm. No open carry allowed at all. Universal background checks, even at gun shows (which is actually the standard across the country).

      “Broad access”, indeed. lol

      Reply

  14. You keep repeating the same tired political talking points, but you have yet to back any of them up with actual facts. You try to make your arguments appeal to the emotional senses of people, but you fail to recognize the emotional turmoil that people go through when they’re forbidden the ability to protect themselves.

    Cars are useful, yes, but so are guns. Guns protect those who are weak – the elderly, the disabled, etc. from those who would take advantage of that very weakness. Who else will protect them more effectively than they can with a firearm? Can you answer this question? Will you, or will you simply ignore it like you have all of my other questions that are actual common sense? Guns are used far more often to protect people than they are to harm them. This fact seems to escape those people who have no knowledge of them and their uses. Put aside your fear and address the actual issue at hand. Stop empowering the incompetent people in power to take more power from the people.

    And, yes. The California jihadists did purchase their firearms legally… in the state with the strictest gun laws on the books! They passed a NICS background check, proving how useful that silly bit of legislation was. But you people scream for more laws that do nothing to curb criminals. Why is that? Can you answer this question?

    What’s next? What laws are more “rational” than those in California? Can you answer this question?

    Can you answer any of these questions, or will you simply ignore them as you’ve been doing up to this point?

    Reply

    • Thank you kyew69!!!! Your argument is very eloquent. Finally someone who can put together an intelligible piece of writing. We need more logical people like yourself.

      Reply

    • He’s clearly a bully. All liberal, democrats are. They thrive on it. They were bullied at some point and they turn into them. They’re all so brainwashed, there’s no hope for them. I blame drugs, violent media, a lack of adequate mental health services and not enough people reporting the aforementioned individuals to the proper authorities.

      Reply

  15. I find it revealing and disheartening that our national leaders have taken few if any steps to deal with this problem. Democrats turn to gun legislation which I think is part of the answer but not all of the answer. Republicans have offered no alternative. They have not put forth any effort to figure this out. If someone can figure out a way to add value or ‘monetize’ the saving of childrens lives, high school and college student lives, and any other life lost in a public shooting they may get behind it. If their corporate sponsors can make money saving people they will be at the forefront of dealing with this wave of mass shootings in America. Until then it is of no value to the Republican Party. We have become a violent nation. Perhaps we always were. I do wonder though if there is a correlation between the animosity between the political parties and the increase in mass shootings. For the past eight years congress’s focus has been on defeating Obama and his health care plan. There is little or no bipartisan effort anymore. It is an all out fight for control. They are providing an example on how to deal with problems. How can this not trickle down to society?

    Reply

  16. Cars are useful, a necessity and rarely used as a weapon. Our society openly accepts the risks of driving cars. Guns are useless and almost exclusively used as a weapon and not an accepted risk. You know how Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik got their guns and 5,000 rounds of ammunition? They walked into neighborhood gun stores and bought them. How insane is that!

    These gun murders are becoming a daily thing and each and every member of the NRA are the cause. NRA members can stop these killings by supporting rational gun safety laws…but instead they celebrate people like Farook and Malik. Great idea. Who needs social workers who work hard every day to help the disabled anyway? Apparently not NRA members.

    Reply

    • Nearly as many people are killed in automobile related accidents as people killed by firearms. You can’t legislate something out of existence. Firearms and their ammunition are made in the Khyber pass almost completely by hand. There are numerous blueprints available online. In an industrialised country like the U.S, with easy access to machine tools it would be absolutely impossible to stop people from owning them. The type of firearm used in these incidents is irrelevant. A man in England used a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle and a double barrel shotgun to kill 13 (including himself), and wound 12.
      Now to your argument. Cars aren’t a necessity; you can walk, bike or take public transit. A radicalized individual recently used an automobile to run down multiple police officers in Canada. I agree that a majority of people accept the risks associated with being around/operating a motor vehicle. Firearms are used in sports, they are used for hunting, and they are used for self defence. In the U.S the majority of people don’t use firearms as a weapon. There’s a risk to leaving your home everyday yet millions of people do just that. “They walked into neighborhood gun stores and bought them” o.k? Your point is? How did you expect them to get them? Magic? Yes, murders are becoming more publicised. Media outlets realise that people enjoy watching/hearing about violence. How are NRA members the cause? What are “rational gun safety laws”? To me rational laws would entail being able to own whatever firearm I wish as long as I don’t kill or attempt to kill another human being? Maybe locking them up when your not using them. How do “they celebrate people like Farook and Malik”? Do they have parties? Is there cake? “Who needs social workers who work hard every day to help the disabled anyway”… I wouldn’t mind some…. It seems like an excellent idea!!!!

      Reply

  17. Paul Colapietro

    As usual people forget the weapon is just a tool. The person pulling the trigger is the problem not the tool. Ban this,ban that. Guess we have to ban automobiles since they cause the most injury and fatalities than everything else. What are you going to try to do now try to sue a car manufacturer?? Saying its there fault. Good
    Luck.

    Reply

    • Thank you Paul Colapietro!!! We all need to work together and figure out how we can prevent criminals/mentally ill/terrorists from owning firearms.

      Reply

      • Easy – by stricter gun ownership laws. Or how about just banning military style guns completely?? Hunting rifles and target pistols are rarely used in mass killings. But assault rifles and other military style guns do! Why should anyone be allowed to own such things?? Don’t abuse the Second Amendment or be sheep to the NRA crazy leadership

        Reply

        • Now there’s some sensibility!

          Reply

        • Because I have the right of self defense and I will obtain the most up to date and functional equipment available.

          Reply

          • You don’t have the “right of self defense”. You have the right to be part of a well-regulated militia, according to the second amendment. Not to be armed to the teeth with the latest military hardware in case you think you might need to be involved in an insurrection against the lawful government.

        • Please tell me what stricter gun laws are going to do to prevent gun crime by criminals. Or rather, more simply, please tell me which type of criminal follows laws that curb their criminal activities.

          You do understand that mass shootings are less than 1% of crime in the US? In other words, sporting rifles (as they’re more accurately called) are used in less than 1% of crimes. But this is what you people call “sensible”.

          Why should someone be allowed to own a firearm that resembles a military rifle in nothing more than appearance? Do you even know what you’re talking about? A Ruger 10/22 is exactly the same mechanism as an AR 15. They look quite different though – the AR is “scary” to you people who know absolutely nothing about guns, so you want to ban it. Ignorance at its finest. We should be allowed to own them because they’re the bar for self-defense rifles. What good is it to defend yourself with a stick when the other guy has a shotgun?

          The Second Amendment says “arms”, which makes no distinction as far as what they look like. The SCOTUS has also ruled that this means whatever is issued to the average infantryman in a modern army. Why would they say that? Because the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or target practice – it’s about being the last line of defense against a corrupt and oppressive government. And you would have us armed with sticks against their guns. You’ve obviously not read much history.

          I’ve also heard it said that having a gun makes it easier for someone to kill another person. Hand a gun to a Buddhist monk. Now start your timer to see how long it takes for him to kill someone with it. Still waiting? Of course you are, because a having gun does not make you a criminal, and keeping guns out of people’s hands will not prevent them from becoming criminals. The isn’t what makes it easy; it’s the mindset that doesn’t acknowledge the moral value of life, liberty, and property. But you’d be happy with no one able to defend themselves from those who have no compunction against harming them. The elderly, the disabled… all of these people would be at the mercy of anyone with a baseball bat.

          Well, except for the fact that the criminal would be armed with a gun, because they don’t buy them through legal channels. No law you make is going to keep the criminal element from obtaining firearms. The laws you want to be made will only apply to those who are naturally predisposed to obeying the law.

          Does any of this make any sense to you? Is it sinking in yet? Stop listening to the media hype about something that isn’t even an issue. Mass shootings are not on the rise. They actually are “normal” in the realm of crime. What’s different is that the media never focused on them in the past, but now they’re chained to the anti-gun agenda, the same as you, and will push it in whatever way they can.

          Break your chains. Start using your own head. Do your own research. Use logic rather than emotional reaction to make your decisions. Then…

          Arm yourself. Get training. Carry your weapon every day. Take an active role in defending against these mass shootings. Take the responsibility for your own defense into your own hands. Stop being lazy and letting everyone else fail at protecting you.

          Reply

  18. I love the fact that both James Bond and Rambo are on the list.

    Reply

  19. And I would like to thank you and the other trolls who come here for reinforcing my perception of the insanity of the anti-gun/freedom mindset.

    What you people don’t realize is that your rage is misdirected. Projection, denial, reaction formation… these psychological defense mechanisms have led all of you to believe that you’re better off being defenseless against those who would harm you. Who knows what tragic events happened in your life to cause such revealing obfuscations to surface. I would suggest that you find psychiatric help though.

    Good luck with that.

    Reply

  20. Thank you for this list! I now know who to support!! A BIG THANKS to all the people/business/organizations on this list!

    Reply

  21. The only way the laws could have been stronger would be to imprison everyone so they couldn’t break the law.

    Try again.

    Reply

  22. France’s gun control laws are highly effective as the statistics clearly show…per capita gun caused deaths are a fraction what they are in the US. Had the laws been even stronger the terrorists would have less opportunity to do what they did. There is not a single reason for AK-47s and similar tools for murder to be a part of our society. We need to get ahead of the curve and eliminate all production, import, sale, transfer and possession of them.

    Reply

    • Put all anti – gun liberals on the battle field without a gun ! See how that works for you!

      Reply

      • Ant-gun liberals are cowards at heart. That’s why they don’t want others to have guns. If someone else displays courage in the face of their cowardice, it makes them look all the worse. It’s basically the “tall poppy” syndrome; they want everyone to appear to be as cowardly as they are.

        Reply

        • Robert Lewis Dear…new NRA poster child

          Reply

        • Actually Courage is not owing a gun….. come up with some ideas, solutions to mass murders, the amount of guns /ammo people can get their hands on. It is a problem, I don’t have any solutions.. arm everyone.. that seems crazy as hell… but maybe that’s where we are headed.. But instead of coming across like an ass, give thought and some ideas about this bullshit situation.

          Reply

          • Exactly. Let’s fix this! It would be so easy without the NRA supporting murderers.

          • You people keep saying that – “let’s find a way!” But you’re unwilling to listen to solutions that are contrary to your own ideas.

            Since the early nineteen-thirties, you people have been restricting the purchase and sale of firearms, all in an effort to curb the “growing gun problem”. 1934 saw the enactment of the NFA, which (simply put) banned full-auto firearms. This came about as a response to gang-related crime, and it accomplished nothing more than restricting law-abiding citizens from owning these firearms. As we saw in Paris, the criminals/terrorists can find what they want when they want, full-auto or not.

            So we said “okay” to the NFA. I mean, who wants to appear unreasonable, right? And it was an emotional time – we had to do something, right?

            The GCA of 1968 came about in response to the shooting of JFK. The rifle used was an Italian Carcano bolt action, and was purchased legally. The GCA “…was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.”

            And we said “okay”. It was an emotional time, and SOMETHING had to be done…

            In 1994, the Brady Act came into existence after the shooting of Reagan. The weapon used was a revolver, and it was legally purchased. It imposes a waiting period on handgun purchases, and bans “assault rifles”. Shot with a handgun, but we ban sporting rifles…

            … and we said “okay”. It was an emotional time, and we had to do something, right?

            Time and time again, we find the fence-sitters being swayed by an “emotional event” that makes it possible to hoodwink them into giving up their rights.

            “The NRA is evil.” “Guns are only for professionals.” “Assault rifles make it easy to kill.” All of these verbal protest signs never tell the whole truth. They never say how 500,000 to 2.5 million lives are potentially saved by firearms every single year. They never say how it takes the police an average of five minutes to respond to the scene of a crime after they’ve been called. They never say how all of the laws they’ve passed in the past fifty years have done exactly nothing to keep criminals from arming themselves and killing innocent people. They never say how NRA members are the least likely in this country to harm someone else with a firearm, intentionally or otherwise.

            And they always claim “you don’t have the right to protect yourself,” which is the biggest lie ever told.

            So, here we are at another emotional crossroads in the history of the country (if not the entire world), and what do we find? The anti-gun people crying again for MORE legislation that will do nothing to prevent good people from being killed by evil people.

            It’s your turn to “compromise” and say “okay” to allowing anyone who wants to have a chance of defending themselves to arm themselves. Stop tying the hands of the victims like lambs to the slaughter. Stop thinking that another law is going to make the difference. And stop believing that you can keep criminals from obtaining firearms by making another law that only stifles the ability of the law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

            Wake up and see your methods aren’t working. We have the solution.

    • You do realize that you can’t own an AK-47 in France without having very difficult to acquire permits? You do realize they are smuggled in? How do you propose to “eliminate all production, import, sale, transfer and possession of them”? Will you ban machine tools, boats, aircraft, trains, transport trucks, passenger vehicles, currency, credit, people meeting in public or private places, the internet and a total intrusion of everyone’s privacy? That is the only way to do that so good luck!!!!

      Reply

  23. I believe in the right to arm bears. A bear has an IQ higher than an NRA member or PePe LePew alias Wayne LaPierre

    Reply

  24. Just pointing out how ridiculous your comments are. I don’t think it is worth my time to respond to you in the future and I won’t. Delete!

    Reply

    • Oh, I see…

      Let me get this straight. My arguments are ridiculous. It should be easy for you to refute them. However, you choose to cut communication.

      I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. So you’re saying that, in effect, you have a gun pointed at me, then you turn around and run like a screaming child when I lunge at you.

      Son, I think your gun isn’t loaded. lol But have fun imagining that you accomplished something here. I’m always happy to treat a troll the way they deserve to be treated.

      Reply

    • Liam Neeson is not listed he is anti gun and every movie he is in now has him with a gun. Oh I don’t go to the movies much anyway they charge too much to be certified unarmed.

      Reply

    • If you can’t have a logical, truthful conversation with other people then stay off of the Internet!!! You were not asked to come to a pro Constitution forum and projectile vomit your propaganda like Linda Blair in The Excocist.

      Reply

  25. Over the next 20 years, but the sooner the better, make it extremely difficult for people like those shooters to get hold of a gun. Strict gun laws, elimination of gun stores, collection and destruction of existing guns.

    Reply

    • “make it extremely difficult for people like those shooters to get hold of a gun. Strict gun laws, elimination of gun stores, collection and destruction of existing guns.”

      How has that worked out with our contiguous neighbor Mexico? The strict gun ban model has never worked out for any country in the world where there is a fair amount of criminal activity in fact, the UK & Australia have seen an increasing trend & spike in violence & crime since their ban.

      The Pew Research Institute did a poll less than a year ago with Australians about the gun ban & the result was nearly 60% of the citizens want the gun ban abolished, why do you think that is?

      You do realize what you are asking for is to ONLY punish law abiding citizens, right?

      Reply

      • Funny, most of those who ended up slaughtering their peers and colleagues at campus mass shootings were “law-abiding” untill they used their guns for murder. Gun licences don’t come with halos anymore than drivers licences do. What a moronic way to depict gun owners — many of whom favor tough gun laws. If you think every gun owner is “law-abiding” you obviously have no clue what a straw purchase is. Every one HAS to be made by a “law-abiding” citizen who uses his licence to illegally help others. If you can predict when the next “law-abiding” gun owner will break the law and go on a killing spree or make an illegal purchase, please let the FBI and the ATF know. They sure could use your help, Mr. Law Abiding. But I suspect you will do nothing, while the body count grows. Typical.

        Reply

        • And every drunk driver was a sober driver before being caught. Every criminal was once law-abiding until they weren’t. What’s your point? Is it that we have to punish the people who are currently law-abiding for the crimes of those who aren’t? Or would you rather just imprison anyone who might kill someone else before they get the chance to do it? Hey, maybe we could take DNA samples and determine who has the best chance of being a criminal before they ever break the law!

          What you idiots never admit is that no law ever made has ever stopped a crime from being committed. What has? Guns. Every single year anywhere from 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses occur in the US alone. The vast majority of these are not even reported as crimes because (wait for it)… no one was hurt! There was no crime, so no crime report.

          But you morons think you have the oldest of humanity’s problems solved – the will to hurt or kill other people – and all the while you’re doing nothing but making it easier for the people who will kill or hurt other people to do exactly that by making it harder for actual law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Every law you make does nothing to curb criminal behavior. Every gun you ban does nothing to keep criminals from getting guns. Look at Paris and the slaughter that happened there. And it happened in a country that is a gun-free zone! Guns are banned in France in case you didn’t know that. But that didn’t keep any of those 160 people from getting killed, did it? How about the 300 injured? Nope, they’re still injured, even though guns were banned.

          You guys need to put the wine glasses down, stub out the joints, and start using your heads for something more than hat racks. Even the smallest and stupidest of children understand that greater power trumps weaker power…

          Every

          Single

          Time.

          Reply

        • Oh the hypocrisy, all within the same comment. You contradicted your own statement about “moronic” classifications by making your own “moronic” classifications. Here is a completely unrelated thought for you.

          Critical Thinking, there are college courses available at any local community college where you will learn about Emotional Intelligence, Fallacies, Propaganda. I’d throw in a few History courses as well since you still fail to realize where we’ve been as a country and as a planet. Try thinking forward a little…weigh all of the pros and cons, take a few days and really try to understand it all. Realize that life is a paradox and every right has a wrong that could be seen from both perspectives and live the experience of both ideologies. Really just weigh it out, then come back here in a few days and read how ridiculous you sound.

          We’re all murderers though, you sound like the brainwashed general of the English army in the 1700s advocating the idea of why control and order was necessary and merited the death of thousands of their brethren before the revolutionary war.

          Reply

    • So you intend to seize individuals property without compensation? That’s illegal, it’s called theft. As mentioned before people can easily make their own firearms. Australia is a great example. Incredibly restrictive laws, criminals made submachine guns. A man in Canada produced a homemade STEN submachine gun. Gun control doesn’t work.

      Reply

  26. Great win today for humanity against the owners of Badger Guns who have blood on their hands. Just the beginning.

    Reply

    • Let’s not get too teary-eyed, there Larry. It wasn’t a win for humanity; it was a win for the legal system. And, might I add, there was no prevention of any crime in this case. What it proves is that the law does not keep bad people from doing bad things, it only punishes those who choose to break the law.

      But, hey. If you want to call it a win for humanity, I’m with you. It’s blatant evidence that passing laws does nothing to prevent crime. That’s a fact that needs to be known across the planet.

      Reply

      • Ok, no more laws across the world! Is this the platform of the NRA? Brilliant.

        Reply

        • Typical liberal response – when anyone makes a logical statement that refutes one of their points, the next step is exaggerated hyperbole, taking the example to the extreme. What you fail to realize is that you prove what anyone with common sense already knows; that extremes are untenable in any scenario.

          In your case, of course you’d take it that extreme, because you have no concept of moderation, and you wish to paint my comment in the worst possible light – that of being lawless. You completely ignore the fact that laws (and the enforcement of them) provide consequences for those who break them… IF they’re caught.

          Bu then, you’d also have to wrap your head around the fact that letting murderers out of prison after three years is part of the problem with our legal system. Meh… liberals. You can’t live with them, and it’s illegal to shoot them.

          At least for now anyway.

          Reply

  27. Anecdotal evidence… perfect. Remind me to call every scientific board in the country to inform them that you have suddenly solved the problem of crime, all by yourself.

    I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to hear it. They might even invite you to a press conference!

    Reply

  28. Just the unfortunate reality of what people do when they have a gun. Since there’s no good reason for it we’ll just remove them from our society. Did you see that the last gun store in San Francisco is closing? Local ordinances ran them out of town. Just a taste of the future little man.

    Reply

    • That’s not reality; that’s your fantasy. No one I know has ever done anything like that, and all my family, and most of my friends have firearms. I wonder if you might be able to explain that…

      San Francisco? lol If you want to compare the rest of that country to that city-sized slum, be my guest. I reckon we’ll see what happens in the future, but regardless, I won’t be disarmed.

      And you… since you would offer up your family to save your own skin, your opinion really has no merit.

      Reply

      • Between your family and friends (who must live in Texas or West Virginia I’m guessing since I don’t know a single person with a gun in California) you know maybe 200 people. Way too small a sample size and you might be surprised when next week one of them…to your utter dismay…shoots up a movie theater.

        Reply

        • Not too small of a sample size to refute this:

          “Just the unfortunate reality of what people do when they have a gun.”

          Cops? Military? Security? Governmental agencies? Why do we not read reams of news articles exposing the mass shootings these people commit?

          Because you’re engaging in hyperbole; the last resort of someone without an argument.

          Reply

        • Margaret Kaufman

          I agree Larry, I lived in California and the only folks I knew with guns were hunters and people moving in from Texas. Not necessary in California nor Hawaii where I currently live. Funny how protective gun owners are, wonder what they have that the rest of us don’t. I live in paradise, so if they have more than that i would like to know what it is.

          Reply

        • “Who must live in Texas or West Virginia I’m guessing since I don’t know a single person with a gun in California”. Now it’s obvious your a bigot. Only people in the southeast, south and southwest own firearms. Why is that? Are they rednecks perhaps? Honkeys possibly? Dare I say Crackers?

          Reply

    • Poor Larry, all bluster & no actual studies generated here in the U.S. that shows Americans would be safer with a gun ban & do you know why? A gun ban ONLY applies to & subsequently punishes the lawful gun owners. The criminals would revel in the idea of a gun ban because they would have the monopoly.

      Let’s look at the gun ban success story with our contiguous neighbor Mexico. Three times the gun murder rate as the U.S. & the criminals run the country but gee whiz, how did they get the guns? I guess drying up the supply sure didn’t work.

      Aside from the usual liberal screaming & whining, there is NO data or studies conducted here in the U.S. that supports your position – zero, nada, zilch. Petulant little feet stamping isn’t an argument, it is the normal liberal distraction.

      However, the studies conducted by our government’s own gold standard – the FBI Uniform Crime Report, clearly isolates the problem areas, almost exclusively “gun free” or severely restricted gun ownership areas AND the safest areas in America – the areas with the least gun restrictions.

      Sorry Larry but more guns in the hands of lawful citizens is proven to reduce crime because the playing gets leveled.

      Lastly, did you know that just the mere presentation of a firearm stops over 1 million crimes per year? Also, over 97% of the gun murders in America are perpetrated by criminals, usually with an illegal weapon & NOT lawful gun owners?

      So tell me, what is your policy prescription that could have prevented Sandy Hook or the Oregon shooting?

      Reply

  29. But your questions were pointless and idiotic. But even so the answer is yes…I very well my shoot someone if I had a loaded gun. No chance of that if I were not allowed to have one. Many of the people who shot another never did a violent thing in their lives and for whatever reason went off the deep end in a moment of depression or rage. I’m better off without a gun and I’m way better off with no one else having a gun.

    Reply

    • If my questions are so idiotic, it should be a piece of cake to prove that they’re also pointless. Or don’t you believe the burden of proof lies with the claimant?

      And did you really just type that? That you would shoot someone if you had a gun? Oy vey… let’s review some of your more interesting statements.

      You say you’d be okay with letting your family die; your wife to be raped, your children killed, all because you’re afraid of guns.

      You say you’re even more willing to allow a greater number of deaths in society to “save” the few that are killed with firearms.

      And now you’re saying you’d intentionally go out and kill someone if you were handed a gun?

      I think that’s just about all the evidence anyone would need to realize that you are not in your right mind.

      End of discussion.

      Reply

    • You said “I’m better off without a gun and I’m way better off with no one else having a gun.” I could not agree more but we don’t live in an imaginary world. If you want to be disarmed, more power to you & I wouldn’t ask you to do something you don’t want to do but maybe you should do the same.

      I’ll ask again – what is your policy prescription that could have prevented Sandy Hook or the Oregon shooting? Invective remarks & vituperation isn’t an answer, so try to think it through.

      Reply

  30. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/01/composite-poll-reveals-what-americans-think-about-gun-control-laws/

    These polls demonstrate the overwhelming positive sentiment among our citizens for stronger gun control laws yet our lawmakers fail to act. This is simple corruption…legislators being bought with NRA money. This divide needs to end.

    Reply

    • Um, those polls show what everyone already knows… that liberal Democrats are opposed to anything with the word “gun” in it except “gun control”.

      What your polls also show is that those same liberals are unwilling to discuss the more prevalent problem of crime in general. They’d rather push their political agenda for control of the masses by making an all-out effort to confiscate all the guns.

      Something they don’t show – the rise in support for gun rights. All of those polls would have shown a greater margin in favor of gun control just ten years ago.

      Here’s another point: your polls are an average of polls. I noticed the majority of the polls were from sources like ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Again proving that liberals cannot provide honest sources for there information. But even considering this telling fact, they still depict a rise in favor of gun rights.

      Yeah, guy. Thanks for the link. It does absolutely nothing to support your position of gun confiscation. It actually goes against it.

      You’re not very good at this debate thing, are you?

      Reply

      • Keep your head in the sand…nobody can see you.

        Reply

        • My head is in the sand looking for your evidence for your claims. An article from a blog (of all things) hardly constitutes evidence of anything other than that someone has waaaaay too much time on their hands.

          Bring some evidence, please. Better yet, bring a logical argument against gun ownership. I would love to see an example of what you consider “logical”.

          Reply

        • Okay, Larry. I’ll make this simple for you. Just answer two questions:

          1. If I put a gun in your hand right now, will you go and shoot someone with it?

          2. If you take the gun from a criminal’s hand, will this prevent him from committing a crime?

          Easy questions, yes? Please limit your responses to “yes” or “no”. there’s really no explanation needed considering the simplicity of these scenarios.

          Reply

          • Stupid question with stupid restrictions. Let me help you with that.

            1. If I put a gun in the hand of 1,000 people right now, will any of them shoot someone with it? Yes

            2. If you take the guns from 1,000 criminal’s hands, will fewer innocent people be killed? Yes

          • Of course people are going to shoot other people; it’s called “self-defense”, and it’s justified. And of course you’ll stop a miniscule amount of gun crimes by taking away guns from 1,000 people, but how many people will die because they couldn’t defend themselves? A lot more than are “saved”.

            The entire point of my questions (which went completely over that thing on your shoulders you use for a hat rack) is that having a gun does not mean you are a criminal, and not having a gun will not prevent you from being a criminal.

            So answer my questions, now that I’ve answered yours. Would YOU go and shoot someone if I gave you a gun right now?

            If you took away the guns from 1,000 CRIMINALS, would they still commit crimes?

            Don’t change the questions to fit your political yapping points. Just answer them as they are. There’s a reason things are worded the way they are; it completely changes the question when you change the words. Your questions were entirely different from mine.

            Ahhh… but that was your goal, wasn’t it? because those particular questions make too much sense, and they don’t support your position of anti-freedom.

            It’s a lot clearer now.

  31. Well well I just hope any of you gun hating lost souls never need one when someone comes in your house looking to rob you or harm your family. They come to my house I’ll send them your way and tell them your unarmed. Lol. Remember guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Besides you liberals always try calling us NRA members crazies. I been hunting along with my 3 brothers and dad since I was 13, and NONE of the 5 of us has ever gone on a rampage. On and not one of the many arms I own (my right) has ever loaded its self, and went out and shot anyone. I find that most of the crazy anti gun people have never own any kind of a firearm, so there for you don’t have the right to speak out against something you know nothing about except what your liberal news media wants to know. Your all puppets on a string of anti Americans.

    Reply

  32. And notice how these guys respond to guests expressing a normal contrary opinion: with rudeness and insults. Its says everything about the people that support the NRA. They are extremists of the most despicable, ignorant, and dangerous type.

    Reply

    • You mean rude like this?

      “This is disgusting exercise in paranoid, McCarthyistic blacklisting. Sadly typical of those buy into conspiracy theories about the boogie man in Washington coming to take their guns away. The ignorance is just pathetic. The gun lobby has blood on their hands, more each day, no doubt about it. The public will wake up to this and vote out their puppets, eventually. Meanwhile, let’s hope the NRA’s criminal negligence doesn’t contribute to the murder of another loved one.”

      Apparently, the people here addressing guests aren’t the only ones who have a problem being civil.

      What’s your excuse? Oh, wait… it’s that your a liberal, isn’t it?

      lol

      Reply

      • oh, i knew that you would that one out the hat. you mean liberal, like Jefferson and Washington and Franklin. Man you are out of it.

        Reply

        • Let me guess… you haven’t read much of history, have you? Don’t you know it was the Democrats that were all for slavery? But the thing is, Democrats back then were what Republicans are today. The names switched places – that’s the only way I can say it simply enough for you to understand. So by claiming the founding fathers were liberals, you confirm that they held the same ideals that conservatives today hold.

          And I bet you thought you had an actual point there, didn’t you?

          Look it up. Read some history. Learn a little something, then come back. I’ll continue to thrash your arguments into mush. That is, if you can come up with any arguments that amount to more than ad hominem attack and hyperbole.

          Reply

      • oh, and thank you for repeating my initial comment. it deserves repeating. and if anyone has any doubts about the intent of this list…look at the URL: “the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/”, Yes it as blacklist of those who disagree with NRAs positions. Discussion over.

        Reply

        • This discussion never started, son. People say, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” You’ve brought nothing to a gun fight.

          Reply

          • right padre, the point obviously went right over your head. sorry bout that

          • The point couldn’t have gone over my head, because it’s on top of your head. It seems to be the only point you’ve made here yet.

  33. And i bet you thought we would all agree with you…surprise!

    Reply

    • Obviously there are morons in the world who can’t see sense if it bit their nose off. Are you one of those?

      And you still haven’t brought anything resembling a position. I can smell your fear from here…

      Reply

      • i have no fear of you, only nausea. but interesting you would frame it in a confrontational construct…get those guns!!

        Reply

      • you missed the argument the first, second, and third times. i’m sorry you are so daft. no interest communicating with those whose positions are fixed. it’s boring and pointless. in your case, i do fear, sadly tragic for our children.

        Reply

  34. And i bet you thought we would all agree with you…surprise?

    Reply

  35. Oh, and all these names and organizations here? yes, this is pathetic attempt to shame and ostracize these individuals for expressing their point of view on a serious issue; it is an attempt to quash their freedom, destroy their reputations and cause economic damage. These tactics are an affront to our our democracy and have been proven over and over to be doomed to failure.

    The people that support the NRA/gun lobby protect a multi-billion dollar arms industry that produces weapons that have no other than to kill. They act like they are hunters and citizens that just want to protect their families. And if they were, this would not be an argument.

    The truth is, these are the benefactors of the international arms trade. It’s very serious people. Don’t let their rhetoric confuse you. These individuals that post these types of website are complicit with all merchants of death.

    Reply

  36. what does this organization really want? money! what a surprise. these guys are the worst of the worst. let’s put them out of business!

    Reply

  37. Actually no, but that is the point. The majority of the public support stronger gun control laws but the minority, through the NRA well financed lobby, have disproportionate influence over our lawmakers. The number of people who support the insane position of the NRA is irrationally high and these ignorant people need to be educated on the facts so they can join the rational majority to force our lawmakers to do what’s best for the country and do away with all these guns. Humanity will prevail.

    And the last time I checked my name is Larry

    Reply

  38. Sorry junior…you can’t just say “stop” and the world will revolve around you. You have no absolute rights…the community you live in decides what is tolerable and what is not. This community will take eventually stop this insanity and take these horrible weapons out of the hands of the masses. That will be done through legislation. These murders, which are growing in frequency, undermine the position of the NRA. Just take your meds and let it happen.

    Reply

    • “… the community you live in decides what is tolerable and what is not.”

      I’m glad you pointed that out, Larry. Perhaps now you’ll be willing to further your education and look up some polls that clearly show the American public does not favor gun control.

      I’d start with Gallup, then try the CNN poll.

      Have fun with that.

      Reply

  39. Finally…someone sensible on this thing!

    Reply

  40. This is disgusting exercise in paranoid, McCarthyistic blacklisting. Sadly typical of those buy into conspiracy theories about the boogie man in Washington coming to take their guns away. The ignorance is just pathetic. The gun lobby has blood on their hands, more each day, no doubt about it. The public will wake up to this and vote out their puppets, eventually. Meanwhile, let’s hope the NRA’s criminal negligence doesn’t contribute to the murder of another loved one.

    Reply

    • Blacklisting? How does this list keep any of those people from living their lives? It’s obvious you’re a troll with no other purpose than to spew your alarmist drivel. Try being rational for once in your wasted life.

      Reply

      • guess it’s hard for you to come up with a reasonable argument, so you resort to meaningless insults and name calling….good luck with that

        Reply

        • Argument against what? Your baseless accusations and trolling? I see no need to even give the appearance of validating that garbage. Come up with an actual argument and I will (as you can see from previous posts of mine) be there to show you exactly where it’s fallacious.

          I await your efforts with bated breath.

          Reply

          • trolling? baseless accusations? I’m sorry for you. You are either so brained washed by NRA second amendment propaganda, or just plain stupid. Read the newspapers, and I mean a selection. Try getting some education on this. And at the very least look up the statistics. You might learn something…perhaps how sickening you are.

          • Thanks for confirming that you have no intention of defending your position. If you had intended to defend your position, you would have made your position clear. I mean, other than things like “This is [sic] disgusting exercise in paranoid [sic]…” and “The gun lobby has blood on their hands…” and “The public will wake up to this and vote out their puppets, eventually” and “… let’s hope the NRA’s criminal negligence doesn’t contribute to the murder of another [sic]…” If those are examples of your position, you really need to study the English language a bit more before trying to convince anyone of anything in this language.

            So this is me (again) asking you to make your position clear. Or are you afraid you can’t defend it?

    • Faulty cause! How is that for a rational argument against your fallacy? ” The NRA has blood on their hands. ” False! The people who pulled the trigger have blood on their hands and you will do well by your people and your agenda if you can grasp that concept. Maybe then you would be able to put forth a logical statement or idea to stop this violence you so adamantly blame on people who are not responsible for it at all. Freedom comes at a price! You will one day wake up older realizing that there is no Utopia where violence does not exist.

      Reply

  41. HELLO! Everyone STOP! As long as we have a constitution and a Bill of Rights, we can still call this nation America. If you don’t want to own a firearm, you don’t have to. It is NOT the government’s job to educate you, that responsibility falls upon tax payers. As all legal gun owners are tax payers, they have the RIGHT to expect their government to uphold their best interests and rights as guaranteed. You cannot legislate morality or sanity. You either have those traits instilled in you by age 6, or sadly, you probably never will.

    Each side of the gun issue feels they have better points than the other. The ONLY “point” should be that EVERYONE has a basic right to life and to DEFEND that life. Therein lies the rub. We all have the right to live but how far are we prepared to go in protecting and preserving that life?

    Reply

  42. So you think that if every drunk guy coming out of the bars at 2:00am is packing a loaded handgun there would be fewer shootings? Get a clue.

    Reply

    • Please show me where anything I’ve said could be reasonably interpreted as what you just said. When you realize it can’t be interpreted that way, please come back and join the discussion with some modicum of rationality.

      Reply

  43. Simple…there’s no good reason for them. Your little bit of fun shooting beer bottles off a fence is not worth the deaths of so many people.

    Reply

    • You’d be right of that were true. However, the reality is that more people are saved by defensive gun uses than are killed by criminal gun uses, gun accidents, and suicides with guns combined. Add to that the fact that anyone carrying a gun is more likely to survive an encounter with a criminal intent on harming them and you have no logical reason to push for gun control. Add to THAT the fact that the vast majority of shooters in mass shootings passed background checks, and you see that the existing gun laws are useless where preventing gun crime is concerned.

      Bottom line? You have no logical argument. Not yet anyway. Please insert another quarter and try again.

      Thanks for playing!

      Reply

  44. Yes, I’m fine with my family members dying under those circumstances. Their chances of death are far higher if they carry guns. There’s plenty we can and will do about it…establish more gun safety laws. Just a matter of time. The NRA will be responsible for many murders in the meantime but it will eventually get done because rational behavior will eventually win.

    Reply

    • Sorry, but you’re behind the learning curve, Larry. This study (done by the CVDC, incidentally) quite clearly states that one who is armed is far more likely to survive an altercation with a criminal than one who isn’t.

      http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

      Actually, you won’t establish more laws that will accomplish anything. In case you haven’t been listening while reality was speaking, criminals don’t obey laws, rendering the creation of laws moot when attempting to control criminals.

      And the NRA isn’t responsible for anything other than preventing you morons from attaining your unicorn Utopia replete with Jell-O rainbows and Kool-Aid rivers.

      Oh, wait… that was never going to happen anyway, was it?

      How about you come back with some logical argument as to why the wholesale ban of firearms is a rational goal. Or maybe just take a stab at logical; I’m often told I expect too much of people…

      Reply

  45. Another incoherent rant. This is much more simple than you think. Stricter gun safety laws. As our President said yesterday…we are the only advanced country in the world that does not take action to fix this problem that is so easily fixed.

    Reply

    • So the demographics of the EU nations match the demographics of the US well enough that the subject of guns is easily interchangeable? Have you lost your mind? As you people are so fond of saying, there are far more guns in the US than any other country on the planet, and you think what works in those other countries will work here automatically? Are you literally breathing from your mouth right now? Do you know why roofs in Florida are flatter than roofs in Maine? Because it doesn’t snow in Florida. But you’re more than happy to say that roofs in Florida need to be steeper.

      Let’s take a look at history… Back in the day, there was very little crime. There were a LOT of guns – anyone could get a gun through the mail. Literally. But then people started trying to counter the few crimes that were committed with firearms by restricting those firearms. What happened then? Crime went up. More gun laws were passed. Crime went up. MORE gun laws were passed, and crime kept rising. You fools ignore the facts in front of you because you think you’ve discovered some new fact that was proven fallacious decades ago.

      But I’ll agree with you on one thing – action does need to be taken. First, we need to get that moron out of the Oval Office. Second, we need to find a way to get help to those people who are mentally unstable. Third, we need to spread the message that no one can reasonably expect to ever be completely safe. Fourth, those people who aren’t armed need to be armed and trained and legally required to carry every single day. Let you people see how laws can take freedom for the greater good.

      Reply

  46. Ronald McDonald Trump

    hehehehe – the only thing funnier than the NRA itself are the knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping idiots that believe in it… fortunately like the dinosaurs, you too will be extinct and forgotten about soon enough – hopefully in my lifetime so that I might enjoy not only the joke that you are but the forgotten memory that you are about to become.

    Reply

    • How so? Explain how you think this is a possible reality. In the ’90s, most people believed gun control worked. These days, the stats have flipped almost exactly – most people believe that gun control is useless. The numbers of firearms bought, and of people (mostly women) who applied for a concealed carry permit have soared in the past decade. Crime (and, incidentally, the suicide and accidental death rates) has plummeted while these numbers have increased.

      A strange correlation to these facts is another fact – that the number of trolls who know absolutely nothing about firearms, and their wider implications upon society, has increased exponentially on the internet, especially on websites where firearms and their use are seen as nothing more than a responsibility that everyone should recognize – to protect oneself and their family.

      I tell you what, troll. Leave your manipulable statistics and biased studies where they belong – in the circular file – and bring me one single logical reason why firearms should be banned or heavily regulated.

      If you can do that, you win the internet.

      Reply

  47. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (actors), Alton Brown (chef), Joe Perry (rock guitarist), Miranda Lambert (country music artist), Johnny Depp (actor), Clint Eastwood (actor), James Earl Jones (actor), Bruce Willis (actor), Ice-T (rapper, actor), Tom Selleck (actor), Eric Clapton (musician), Gary Sinise (actor), Joe Mantegna (actor), Adam Baldwin (actor), Kevin Sorbo (actor), R, Lee Ermey (actor), Dean Cain (actor), Sarah “S.E.” Cupp (TV Host), James Hetfield (musician), Rob Lowe (actor)…

    The list goes on and on… your fantasy has been dissolved.

    Reply

    • Joe Montegna (who has a show on American Rifleman TV) Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Gary Sinise, R. Lee Ermy are not on the list. I guess you cannot read. Why do you think that rodeo performers and cowboys in general wear Wranglers and not the Communist brand Levi Strauss? Why do patriotic Seniors eschew the AARP and belong to the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC)?

      Reply

      • If you’ll notice, my comment was in reply to whoever asked for a list of pro-gun celebrities. Sorry to deflate your rant, Bubba.

        Reply

        • You were so close to the anti list, I screwed up. Sorry, we are on the same team. Feel free to use the rant, it needs to be used a lot. I check the list to make sure I am not boycotting a company or person that has recanted like the Chlorox Corp (Kingston Charcoal).

          Reply

          • It seems the forum doesn’t stack the replies perfectly either. No harm, no foul. Shoot safe and often!

          • Thanks NRA…for killing 10 more of our kids.

          • Larry, the NRA didn’t kill those kids – people like you killed them. People who want all of us to be defenseless, people who want “gun-free kill zones” to cover the face of the planet, people who refuse tot ake responsibility for their own protection, and then blame those who do protect themselves for the actions of the criminals who are only exercising the advantage that people like you give them.

            Stop your whining and grow up. Arm yourself, get training, acquire the mindset of a defender, and go make a difference. Until you actually DO something about it, you’re nothing but part of the problem.

          • Arm myself? Are you serious? Like more guns is a solution? What a stupid f^%ck you are.

          • Larry your thought process that the NRA is responsible for those kids death is about as reasonable as trying to hold Goodyear, or BF Goodrich responsible for all the drunk driving deaths.
            Until you are able to actually hold a coherent thought and blame the sick person that actually did this instead of a group of people that feel that protecting yourself is a better response then THEY, the ones that want to do this type of thing have won… and they will continue to kill those unprotected kids at will with impunity.
            In conclusion, it is sick people like you that allow this to happen by giving sick people with guns a venue to shoot unarmed people, don’t blame the NRA that want to protect these kids for the environment you and people like you have provided them.

          • I blame you for these murders. You stand in the way and allow them to happen. You are responsible. How does it fee lnto kill innocent people? How would you feel if it were your son, your daughter that you killed?

          • Larry, Larry, Larry… so emotional! You understand that emotion does not lend itself to rational thought, don’t you?

            Typical liberal argument – always blame something/someone other than the very thing/person responsible. The only people killing other people with firearms are those who pulled the trigger. This opens up the question: Was it a justified shooting? After asking that, you then have to wonder how many times a life has been saved because the potential victim had a firearm.

            Funnily enough, someone actually did a study on this and came up with the numbers: 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun use incidents occur every year. That’s, potentially, a half a million to five times that in saved lives. Compare that to the average 300,000 criminal gun uses a year in the US.

            By your logic, you’re more than happy to be responsible for all those innocent people dying. Would you feel the same if your children died because they couldn’t fight back against a home invader? Would you be fine with your wife being raped and beaten to death because she didn’t have a gun to fend off the three men that charged her from out of a dark alley one night?

            Think about it. I mean really think about it. Let it get you emotional, because that’s where we all stand right now. We’re not going to let it happen if we can prevent it.

            And you know what? There’s not a thing you can do about it.

  48. Is there a list published of the outfits and celebrities that DO SUPPORT our Second Amendment Rights?

    Reply

    • Yes, here’s the list:

      Charlton Heston, Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent.

      Wait! Charlton Heston is dead (yea!). Yep…it’s down to just Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent.

      Reply

      • Typical liberal – cheer over the death(s) of others. When Sandy Hook happened, I bet you nearly creamed your jeans, didn’t you? “Oh, my! Now we have a rallying cry! And at such a cheap price!” Vultures. Ghouls. It’s no wonder you don’t respect civil rights; you don’t even respect tragic death.

        Reply

      • I blame you for: low sperm count in America, stupid liberals who misrepresent the Constitution of the US, the high unemployment rate, the killing of people for being Christians, the killing of innocent babies (not by a gun, but by those who believe a unborn is not a human), the systematic increase of taking from those who have and giving to those who are under the “entitlement” mentality, the false hope of $15+ an hour minimum wage and keeping people out of poverty, the lowering of America’s IQ and critical thinking skills because we do not want to offend anyone, the trampling of Rights guaranteed under the Constitution (Right to Defend Ourselves, Right to Free Speech, Right to Religion, etc), the ever increasing Rights of what is not in the Constitution over those Rights that are in the Constitution.

        I am not here to debate facts, figures or hear the tired argument, “Site Your Source”. I am just stating what I believe I should be able to blame you and those that agree with you for. Since you feel the need to do the same to those on here.

        Reply

  49. “I would love to educate you in general but I sense that would take a lifetime…go back to third grade and pick up where you left off.”

    You keep making claims to this effect, but I have yet to see you disprove one single point I’ve made, nor have you succeeded in defending any of your claims that I’ve refuted.

    It appears you’re in over your head. In that case, it’s fully understandable for you to attempt character assassination rather than argue salient points.

    Reply

Leave a Reply