NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

[SMOGZINN]

Actually having small arms did made the Resistance effective against Nazis during WWII. Why do you think the US went out of the way to provide them with to those fight them?

First off there is a ton of difference between WWII and today, but more importantly the Resistance was never going to win on their own. They were never effective as a fighting force, they were a nuisance and provided strategic assistance to the allied militaries. If there was not a war going on the Nazis would have eventually stamped them out through attrition.

 

[dainthomas]

All the NRA needs to stay alive is a democratic President every few years. They can start back with scare tactics like "Durr, they're going to take your guns away!". Idiots eat that up and the donations pour in.

Even though Dump is responsible for more gun restrictions than Obama.

He loves the uneducated.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Actually having small arms did made the Resistance effective against Nazis during WWII. Why do you think the US went out of the way to provide them with to those fight them?

Did the Nazis have drones?

Here’s the point if somehow the US goes completely mad and a future Democrat President orders himself or herself king. Guys with guns will be nothing but a nuisance.
The new dictator will order all credit card companies to disclose who has purchased gun related items, they order all hunting & gun ranges report all members. They’ll order those guns be turned in and bulldoze anyone who won’t comply house. They’ll order that person to be unemployable too.
Try explaining to your wife or kids that you have to live outside & scrounge for food because keeping your gun(s) is far more important.
Big data, electronic record keeping has made the idea of hiding a gun impossible.

 

[balloonshark]

The death of the NRA would be one of the few good things to come out of Trump’s presidency.

It is kind of funny though that the various gun nuts on here used to say they were going to go donate to the NRA when people criticized their position on guns. If they actually did that it turns out the people running the NRA just stole their money, laughing all the way.

I keep trying to tell conservatives that no liberal has ever had more contempt for their intelligence than the conservative leaders they follow.

Absolutely. There is a huge difference in calling someone stupid or thinking they are stupid versus using that stupidity against them. That is exactly what the republicans are doing to their "less fortunate" constituents. I only wish there was a way to shine a light on what I saw when I woke up and realized I was wrong. I guess I just realized that every thing they actually did benefited the wealthy completely or in a very unbalanced way while they sold it to their voters as the greatest thing since sliced bread. My bullshit meter was pegged every time I heard of them talk and I couldn't ignore it any longer

 

[Moonbeam]

Except as we have said again and again the Second Amendment and the ability to own small arms will do next to nothing to protect you from a military with drones that launch tomahawk missiles, and trained solders with military equipment.

Really? What keeps me from gun violence is that I live in Silicon Valley and nobody has guns and am a liberal. Justice and equality are my thing and it would be totally unethical in my moral world view to shoot unarmed people. I'll just shame them to death by slapping a bumper sticker on my $240,000 Range Rover extolling the A+ grades of my prodigy children.

 

[KB]

Except as we have said again and again the Second Amendment and the ability to own small arms will do next to nothing to protect you from a military with drones that launch tomahawk missiles, and trained solders with military equipment.

So then why are we trying to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/asia/us-taliban-talks-afghanistan-qatar-baradar.html
Surely their small arms and IEDs are no match for our military's drones, missiles and trained soldiers?

 

[fskimospy]

I think the most likely answer is that gun ownership is emotional and not logical. When conservatives see a Democrat in office they irrationally panic and buy lots of guns. Liberals didn't want to buy a gun anyway and so a Republican in the White House doesn't change that.

It's ironic that conservatives stockpile guns out of supposed fear of a tyrannical government because I would bet a lot of money that if such a government comes to pass in the US the vast majority of gun owners will support it. I mean currently the president is putting forth the argument that he can commit unlimited crimes while in office and no one can do anything about it and they don't have a problem with it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So then why are we trying to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/asia/us-taliban-talks-afghanistan-qatar-baradar.html
Surely their small arms and IEDs are no match for our military's drones, missiles and trained soldiers?

So, you contend that we are losing the war in Afghanistan?

 

[alien42]

Liberals didn't want to buy a gun anyway and so a Republican in the White House doesn't change that.

the rest of your post was fine but that part is just not accurate. i know plenty of "liberals" who are also gun owners, they just don't feel the need to own an arsenal.

 

[fskimospy]

the rest of your post was fine but that part is just not accurate. i know plenty of "liberals" who are also gun owners, they just don't feel the need to own an arsenal.

Yes, it was overbroad but what I meant was the average liberal does not own a gun and does not wish to. There are of course, plenty of exceptions.

 

[Bitek]

I am a little surprised more democrats aren't becoming gun owners in this time of Trump. If any leader in our history demonstrates our need to keep the Second Amendment in the constitution, its Trump. He insults his opponents, attacks the media calling it "fake news", creates manufactured crises (only he can solve), villianizes foreigners; all implements of the dictators playbook. He probebly hasn't read 1984, but he's following it's "teachings".

You want to fight government oppression.
You go get a gun to defend your rights.
Great. Thanks 2A!

Now who are you going to point it at?

The mailman? Local LEOs? Local judges? A park ranger?

People who do that now are terrorists &/or murderers. They don't get celebrated as freedom fighters.

Drive to DC and point it at a congressmen then?
Same result.

Guns are useful to have once everything goes to shit, but until that point the only thing it's good for is poking holes in paper from a long way away.

 

[m8d]

Conservatism is a racket.

 

[Svnla]

Guns make you less safe. Statistically.

Nope. That's NOT your previous post. Here it is again. Your very own words in full context:

fuck guns and the pussies who carry them.

So my question to you and those that gave you thumb ups is should those women from my links and countless other potential victims of violent crimes have the right to use any mean necessary to defend themselves from serious harm?

Yes or No.

Simple answer. Don't wimp out and weasel out like a pussy, right? Because pussies will be fucked (your own words).

 

[hal2kilo]

Nope. That's NOT your previous post. Here it is again. Your very own words in full context:



So my question to you and those that gave you thumb ups is should those women from my links and countless other potential victims of violent crimes have the right to use any mean necessary to defend themselves from serious harm?

Yes or No.

Simple answer. Don't wimp out and weasel out like a pussy, right? Because pussies will be fucked (your own words).

False choice.

 

[Paladin3]

We are a loooooong way from having to take up arms against our government. Mostly because our law enforcement, especially at the county sheriff level, and military understand they are fighting for the safety and freedom of law-abiding citizens. They've sworn to protect and uphold the constitution and are putting their lives on the line to do so.

What are the chances those very people would obey an unconstitutional order from any president to seize power? If a president was dumb enough to try overthrowing the democratic process, disarming the American people and installing a military dictatorship, I believe most if not all of the military and law enforcement of this country would either refuse or be fighting on the side of freedom because that's exactly what they signed up to do.

And an armed citizenry stands as a final check against tyranny, but we don't surrender that power just because we may not need it today. How the heck do we expect to be treated equally by those who are willing to use force against us if we are not prepared to use force in return to protect ourselves? That doesn't mean we aren't civilized, just that we are realistic about the nature of man.

In a perfect world everyone would play nice and then, maybe, we could disarm ourselves. Even then, I'd still want to target shoot and go hunting.

 

[Paladin3]

False choice.

Not really. Those victims were only able to protect themselves because they were armed. Statistics be damned, I'm glad they were.

So, the real choice is: would you rather disarm in the hopes that criminals will too, and guarantee yourself a potential victim by doing so?

Or, would you rather take the tiny statistical chance that you will accidentally hurt yourself with your own gun and have it to protect yourself with should the unthinkable happen? Keep in mind that said risk can be mitigated with training and practicing proper gun safety.

If your answer is that you will take your chances and don't want a gun, then I am totally cool with that. Owning a gun is a big responsibility and potential liability many don't want to take on. And the chance you will actually ever need to protect yourself with one is rather small. But don't act like those of us who obey the law and decide to own a gun are the problem when it comes to gun violence.

And please stop acting like if we just agree to give up our guns that those who are bent on crime and killing will follow our example. It's dangerous, wishful thinking, at best.

 

[ImpulsE69]

We are a loooooong way from having to take up arms against our government. Mostly because our law enforcement, especially at the county sheriff level, and military understand they are fighting for the safety and freedom of law-abiding citizens. They've sworn to protect and uphold the constitution and are putting their lives on the line to do so.

What are the chances those very people would obey an unconstitutional order from any president to seize power? If a president was dumb enough to try overthrowing the democratic process, disarming the American people and installing a military dictatorship, I believe most if not all of the military and law enforcement of this country would either refuse or be fighting on the side of freedom because that's exactly what they signed up to do.

And an armed citizenry stands as a final check against tyranny, but we don't surrender that power just because we may not need it today. How the heck do we expect to be treated equally by those who are willing to use force against us if we are not prepared to use force in return to protect ourselves? That doesn't mean we aren't civilized, just that we are realistic about the nature of man.

In a perfect world everyone would play nice and then, maybe, we could disarm ourselves. Even then, I'd still want to target shoot and go hunting.

I agree with most of this, but I kind of disagree regarding the military. That's not how the military works nor the government (in the US). There won't be some obvious overthrow. It will be behind the scenes and a big production of lies and deceit and over time. The military will follow orders because that's what they are trained to do, without question. It will be the civilians versus the military. Yes, some will dissent, but it will be a minor number. What you might see is division of power among generals and those who follow them (as yes there will be people who disagree with things), but at that point they will be labeled traitors to the country by whoever is running things. It will once again be a who are you going to believe scenario, no different than today.

As for when? In about 20-30 years if the climate change experts are correct. It will start with martial law as resources dwindle and people will accept it because they flock to whoever can make them feel safe. It will escalate from there - all in the name of 'keeping things civil and 'we know what's best for you', while the same rich above the law people continue to look out for themselves. Maybe we luck out and by then actually have someone fair in charge, but unlikely. Those people don't fare well in crisis scenarios, because logic goes out the window and is replaced with emotion by the masses (generally because they are going without). For all the people concerned about their children, you should consider the long game. If climate change is as bad as we think, some mass shootings are not as serious as you want to believe.

/flame suit on

 

[SMOGZINN]

And please stop acting like if we just agree to give up our guns that those who are bent on crime and killing will follow our example. It's dangerous, wishful thinking, at best.

It is not like we are going to politely ask criminals to disarm themselves. We are going to disarm them over time. We will give economic incentive to turn guns over, and that along with making guns hard to get will raise their value to the point that most criminals simply can't afford one. As time passes there will be fewer and fewer guns out there in general. With stiff penalties for having guns, the high likelihood that if they are caught not only will they go to prison for simply having the gun, but will lose what is probably the most valuable item they own, criminals will have to really consider if carrying one is worth it, and those with one will save it for dire circumstances, effectively removing it from use. It is the same reasons that very few people criminals use fully automatic weapons now. It will work in exactly the same way.

The idea that you are going to be some type of hero by pulling your gun out like a super power and protecting your family is a childish fantasy. The reality is those damned statistics show clearly that you are much more likely to have those guns turned on you, by your own family. You might not like statistics, but ignoring them for your fantasy is making your decisions on pure emotion.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So then why are we trying to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/asia/us-taliban-talks-afghanistan-qatar-baradar.html
Surely their small arms and IEDs are no match for our military's drones, missiles and trained soldiers?

Are you & your family prepared to live like a Taliban fighter. Most captured ones are malnourished.
Are you prepared to live that life? Is your wife prepared to live that life? Are your kids prepared to live that life?

or

Will being fed & having a roof to sleep under be more attractive?

 

[ImpulsE69]

It is not like we are going to politely ask criminals to disarm themselves. We are going to disarm them over time. We will give economic incentive to turn guns over, and that along with making guns hard to get will raise their value to the point that most criminals simply can't afford one. As time passes there will be fewer and fewer guns out there in general. With stiff penalties for having guns, the high likelihood that if they are caught not only will they go to prison for simply having the gun, but will lose what is probably the most valuable item they own, criminals will have to really consider if carrying one is worth it, and those with one will save it for dire circumstances, effectively removing it from use. It is the same reasons that very few people criminals use fully automatic weapons now. It will work in exactly the same way.

The idea that you are going to be some type of hero by pulling your gun out like a super power and protecting your family is a childish fantasy. The reality is those damned statistics show clearly that you are much more likely to have those guns turned on you, by your own family. You might not like statistics, but ignoring them for your fantasy is making your decisions on pure emotion.

You really think our government is going to melt those guns that get turned in? No f'n way. They will stockpile or sell them to whatever country's war they are trying to influence at the time.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You really think our government is going to melt those guns that get turned in? No f'n way. They will stockpile or sell them to whatever country's war they are trying to influence at the time.

Yes, they will definitely stockpile them against the possibility of an attack by a army of squirrels. /s

Small civilian arms are not all that useful to a government, any government. Honestly the metal they could get out of melting them down is more useful.

 

[Paladin3]

It is not like we are going to politely ask criminals to disarm themselves. We are going to disarm them over time. We will give economic incentive to turn guns over, and that along with making guns hard to get will raise their value to the point that most criminals simply can't afford one. As time passes there will be fewer and fewer guns out there in general. With stiff penalties for having guns, the high likelihood that if they are caught not only will they go to prison for simply having the gun, but will lose what is probably the most valuable item they own, criminals will have to really consider if carrying one is worth it, and those with one will save it for dire circumstances, effectively removing it from use. It is the same reasons that very few people criminals use fully automatic weapons now. It will work in exactly the same way.

The idea that you are going to be some type of hero by pulling your gun out like a super power and protecting your family is a childish fantasy. The reality is those damned statistics show clearly that you are much more likely to have those guns turned on you, by your own family. You might not like statistics, but ignoring them for your fantasy is making your decisions on pure emotion.

Then go and do it. Make it happen. Overturn the 2A of the American Constitution. I'm sure you have the votes to do it, don't you?

You sound a bit like someone proposing the war on drugs way back before it got started. And drugs aren't even protected by the Constitution. Your plan has all the steps lined out, lots of "what" you are doing to do just not the "how" of it. Most of what you propose is either unconstitutional or we've already tried it and it didn't work.

EDIT: What your plan boils down to is that if we make it really, really, really hard for law-abiding citizens to enjoy their 2A rights and have guns then, MAYBE, we will eventually get guns away from the criminals, too, and they will go quietly into the night.

Good luck.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yes, they will definitely stockpile them against the possibility of an attack by a army of squirrels. /s

Small civilian arms are not all that useful to a government, any government. Honestly the metal they could get out of melting them down is more useful.

But we're not talking about small civillian arms. Those aren't even the weapons everyone is afraid of when they push the 'we need to get rid of guns' agenda.

 

[Paladin3]

I agree with most of this, but I kind of disagree regarding the military. That's not how the military works nor the government (in the US). There won't be some obvious overthrow. It will be behind the scenes and a big production of lies and deceit and over time. The military will follow orders because that's what they are trained to do, without question. It will be the civilians versus the military. Yes, some will dissent, but it will be a minor number. What you might see is division of power among generals and those who follow them (as yes there will be people who disagree with things), but at that point they will be labeled traitors to the country by whoever is running things. It will once again be a who are you going to believe scenario, no different than today.

As for when? In about 20-30 years if the climate change experts are correct. It will start with martial law as resources dwindle and people will accept it because they flock to whoever can make them feel safe. It will escalate from there - all in the name of 'keeping things civil and 'we know what's best for you', while the same rich above the law people continue to look out for themselves. Maybe we luck out and by then actually have someone fair in charge, but unlikely. Those people don't fare well in crisis scenarios, because logic goes out the window and is replaced with emotion by the masses (generally because they are going without). For all the people concerned about their children, you should consider the long game. If climate change is as bad as we think, some mass shootings are not as serious as you want to believe.

/flame suit on

Go ask them. You obviously have a very low opinion of the intelligence and moral fiber of our military.

And predictions for society's doom have been around for almost as long as society itself. Usually from someone selling something. I have faith we can handle whatever challenges come our way, including climate change.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Then go and do it. Make it happen. Overturn the 2A of the American Constitution. I'm sure you have the votes to do it, don't you?

You sound a bit like someone proposing the war on drugs way back before it got started. And drugs aren't even protected by the Constitution. Your plan has all the steps lined out, lots of "what" you are doing to do just not the "how" of it. Most of what you propose is either unconstitutional or we've already tried it and it didn't work.

EDIT: What your plan boils down to is that if we make it really, really, really hard for law-abiding citizens to enjoy their 2A rights and have guns, MAYBE we will eventually get guns away from criminals and they will go quietly into the night.

Good luck.

I know, I know, there is something amazingly special about the United States that means that what worked in every other country in the world won't work here.

I've said many times before that we don't need to repeal the 2A, all we need is to reinterpret it to it's original concept and make 'well regulated militia' an important requirement again.