You ain’t seen nothing, yet. After DEMs take back control of Congress in November, the NRA and other domestic terrorist organizations are going to get some intense focus.
You ain’t seen nothing, yet. After DEMs take back control of Congress in November, the NRA and other domestic terrorist organizations are going to get some intense focus.
APRIL 3, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
2
You’ve failed to censor me and others with whom you disagree, including use of BOTS – which were subsequently blocked by IJ.
Glad to see this happening. When The State can come after a private enterprise like this, there needs to be push-back. NY is attempting to quash interstate commerce without any authority to do so. Good for the NRA for taking on this obvious overreach.
The problem with lawsuits like this is the only people that suffer are the tax payers and they are oblivious. When states do things, or the Federal government, there are usually a person or persons behind it. What ends up happening is the tax payer pays millions to file or defend it, while the governor or whomever walks away free from their decision. There needs to be some recourse against the persons illegal activity. Even if its one day or week in jail, something. Maybe first time, one day, the second time, one week, third time one month. These people need to stop using tax payer’s money just to make a political point, even though it’s not constitutional. They have enough lawyers working for them, that they should be able to tell them what they are doing is illegal or not. These states disobeying the constitution and over-riding Federal Law, should have their governors prosecuted as I stated above. If not, these weekly lawsuits will continue and our taxes will continue to go up. This is a great time to be a lawyer in America.
Agreed, would love to see such punishments imposed on all the legislators pushing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion that have been struck down by the courts repeatedly! Passing an obviously unconstitutional law is unacceptable.
I agree that all legislators and citizens who oppose gun ownership and support abortion rights are consistent in their intent to make people defenseless against criminals with guns owned illegally or abortion doctors with scalpels who violate the oath they took upon graduation(?) from med school.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
The NRA lost the support of its insurers because the brokers were misrepresenting the intent of the legal liability insurance policies; providing insurance for intentional criminal acts. CHUBB And others pulled out. The broker was fined $7,000,000 by the state regulator and then the NRA sued.
The Parkland students and others are fighting to have Risk Control measures enforced. People are dying needlessly. And the NRA is mad?
The NRA isn’t mad. Gun control freaks are mad, and don’t understand or believe in the US Constitution. NO GUN LAW will protect citizens from criminal law breakers who will find a way to own a gun illegally (based on ANY wording of gun control laws).
That’s a lie. The Carry Guard insurance contracts very specifically excluded coverage for intentionally criminal acts:
From Pages 3 & 4 0f the Chubb Carry Guard contract:
“NRA (SECTION 1s) 05 17
IV. EXCLUSIONS
O. any claim arising out of a criminal act as defined by applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws by an “insured” except this exclusion shall not
apply to an “act of self-defense”.
P. any claim caused by an “insured” while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, narcotics or any other mind-altering substance, as defined by
applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws.”
That’s the hypocrisy of the NRA. Someone demands that reasonable gun control legislation be enacted, and the nut job NRA and its minions tell the world that the government is coming to takes all their guns away. Trumpism at its worst.
BTW, good luck suing a governmental entity for doing something within the scope of its charter. Immunity, anyone?
Retired UW
What exactly is reasonable gun control? Please do not reply banning assault weapons as Armolite 15 and its many variants are no more assault weapons or weapons of war than the M1 carbine or Rugers mini 14. It is only when a mentally deranged individual uses what is nothing more than a tool that the weapon becomes a bad thing. With that said please help me understand what is reasonable gun control, for me by the way it is fully enforcing the hundreds of laws already on the books.
you can have your musket. reasonable gun control is the removal of weapons that serve no purpose than killing as many humans as quickly as possible from circulation. so, yes, sentence #2 of your reply. they aren’t for hunting or personal protection.
What do you think your chances are when you door’s kicked-in and 2 or 3 home invaders waltz in. You might get 1 with your “hunting rifle”. You be lucky to get 2 with your 10 rnd magazine handgun. A semi-auto with a 30 rnd mag gives you a decent chance of coming out of this alive.
where do you live that this is a regular occurrence?
May 14, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
15
12
Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?
May 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
12
3
sal…ironton, OH and yes, there are regular instances of this, not that it matters. Even if I live where its never happened, personal protection is EVERYONE’S RIGHT.
Ron…I don’t have children nor any around my home. Implying that a responsible gun owner cannot have quick access to a loaded weapon is BS. You know not of what you speak.
May 14, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Retired UW says:
Like or Dislike:
7
8
Dave, you should move somewhere safer.
May 14, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
7
Just use your car or knife, right? Conservatives keep “whatabouting” those talking points. Supposedly, cars and knives are just as effective in killing people so you could just grab your car keys or open up your dishwasher when they come waltzing in.
May 17, 2018 at 4:22 am
BaconLovingInfidel says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
“Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?”
An idiotically ignorant question. The implication that a defensive weapon needs to be unloaded and locked in a safe for it’s owner to be responsible is moronic. A defensive firearm can be extremely secure while still accessible for defense. There’s nothing irresponsible about keeping defensive firearms loaded. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Firearms are used prolifically for self defense and defense of family, friends, and home in the US. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.
May 17, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Good point, Bacon.
I keep a loaded harpoon by my front door in the highly likely event I get invaded by the land shark.
To be clear, I know of no State where its legal to possess a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun (except under severe restriction). Convicted felons, those dx with mental illness and pot smokers cannot pass the Federal Background Check, hence cannot purchase a firearm.
NRA members support background checks (that are already in place), not necessarily “stronger gun control laws”. Your statement on this point is misleading at best.
Overall, your demand that the negative be proved is foolish. If you want a law, show that it will have the desired effect and then we’ll think about it.
He never said it was legal, he clearly said Illegal:
Certain firearms are illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal.
he even said ILLEGAL twice in his sentence.
And pot smokers cannot pass the federal background check….ummm ok! Do you think they are drug screening??!! I have yet to be asked to provide a urine, hair or mouth swab when purchasing a gun. Some people on this site are truly clueless and spew nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I admit, it is extremely entertaining!!
Well, Ummmm, George’s implication was something like “if only the rest of the USA had MA’s gun laws, we’d be moving in the right direction.” Its an old Straw-Man used by folks who can’t offer a cogent argument.
Fact is, (as I noted) most of the restrictions he cites are already in place in the rest of the country. MA’s licensure process stops no crime. Straw-Man
George,
I live in AZ which has been voted for the last couple of years as being the most gun friendly state in the union. Yet I cannot recall one mass shooting here, and I pray to God that one never happens. All gun laws do is impact honest people who are not a threat to anyone.
Again based upon my experience I would ask that someone show me how MA list of gun safety laws would solve today’s issues? The list provided are all controlled via the NFA so why does MA go one step further and make NFA firearms illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts? Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal as well as silencers. Can anyone point to a crime in the last 40 years that impacted large amounts of people where the criminal used one of these? Oh and by the way I can saw off a shot gun to 18 and 1/2 inches and it is still a legal weapon.
I keep saying it but the problem is not the gun it is the criminal behind the gun and a government that does not take proactive steps when informed of individuals who present a danger to themselves and others. It is easy to armchair quarterback but that is exactly what happened in the case of Parkland and the church shooter in Texas, the same government that you want to take away more rights from honest law abiding citizens did not do their job.
One more point and I will get off of my soapbox why does the government not go after every person who fails a instant background check that is due to a legitimate cause? It is a crime for a convicted felon to even attempt to purchase a weapon but very rarely does the federal government go after these people.
Common sense gun laws, for example, would be closing the “gun show loophole”, which the NRA says doesn’t exist. If a person walks into a gun store and tries to buy a weapon through an FFL, a background check happens before the sale can be completed. If that person is ineligible to own a gun, they will denied.
That same person can attend a gun show, or purchase a gun through a private sale, and no background check is required.
In Connecticut, where I live, any transaction, private included, requires a simple background check. We call the State Police, give them the name and permit numbers of both individuals, you wait about three minutes, and if both parties are eligible, they give you an approval number. You write that number on the paperwork, along with both parties information, and send it in to the State police and the town police where you live. It’s simple, and quick. And, you know you just sold your gun to a person who’s legally able to have it. What’s wrong with that?
The NRA continually fights against this, claiming there’s no loophole because it’s already illegal for felons and such to own a firearm, and that they should police themselves. It’s wrong.
THAT’S common sense gun law. And by the way, I’m a second amendment supporter, gun owner, hunter, and NRA member. The NRA can help us all by giving a little.
True and now that the firearm is on the grid the next step will be to pass a law that has law enforcement knock on your door when you don’t turn it in. Some people just don’t get it. But it is no secret their wet dream agenda is to disarm Americans.
From my limited knowledge of the Carry Guard program it would only reimburse the individual member for cost of defense if they were found not guilty or the charges were dropped, can someone please explain why this would be a bad thing in the Peoples Republic of New York? As to Lockton paying the NRA for the affinity program there may be an issue under NY law but question how all of the other affinity programs function throughout the country?
I would agree with the NRA’s stand relative to regulatory entities bad mouthing to the entire financial industry that a relationship with the NRA could be a problem if true certainly seems to me to overstep the authority of the department.
This is the United States of America. Land of the FREE and home of the brave.
Stop fighting each other over this and use that energy to think of a viable solution instead of hating each other for your beliefs. Remember: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
When seconds count, it only takes police minutes to get there. And the police are not obligated to put their life before yours – which is why you need the right to protect yourself with whatever you choose in a free country.
Countries with no guns still have shootings and then also, people find other ways to kill eachother with knives and other means. People kill people, not guns. Do knives kill people? No people kill people.
The time has come where home invasions do seem to be more prevalent. Having protection seems to make good sense in the one country where it is legal. You don’t know what you’re up against. The criminal has the element of surprise so a super gun in a responsible household makes sense.
The reason we have it in the constitution is to protect us from the government. When the government has more and stronger weapons than the people it serves, the people will suffer. History shows us that he citizens need the weapons otherwise, how will we keep the .01% in check. It has happened in the past, in many countries where governments have disarmed their own people, singled them out, and punished them.
I’m all for responsible gun ownership and an insurance policy that might have protected me in the slight and remote chance I might have to protect myself.
God Bless America where I have that right.
Yes, it is. From what I understand, it was a single target and not intended to be a mass shooting. But, the target was able to fire back and hit the shooter, chasing him away. Shooter was from Dixon, right? I spent time living in Bettendorf, which is basically Davenport. The best BBQ ribs are across the river in Rock Island. And now, I’m craving Jim’s.
Its my understanding that the gun man came into a hallway firing and the School Resource Office got to the shooter before the shooter could get to anyone.
Second time this has happened since Parkland Shooting. Building a strong case for Armed Security in schools. Two different School shooters taken out before they could do the damage they intended on doing so. Little to no press coverage on these two. But mass casualties…. Grab all the head lines.
FFA,
In both of these cases, there was only a single target. There was never any intention to be a mass shooting. The shooter was going after the resource officer in IL. That was his target – the 2 had history. Dixon kid fired at the resource officer and resource officer fired back. Dixon kid knew where he worked, was easier to track him down there. In the other case, the shooter did his damage, he shot who he wanted to and the bullet also caught someone he didn’t intend to.
I personally don’t want my daughters in a school with guns. I’m not against people owning them. There are tight controls to gain entry to our schools in my community. No sense in adding guns to the mix. Just my opinion.
I don’t have a problem putting armed security in schools – you lose me when the talk shifts to arming teachers. (To clarify: I’m using the indefinite pronoun of you – I’m not specifically referencing FAA, Captain, or any one individual).
I don’t believe arming teachers is the way to go either. First objection is a target is put on all teachers weather they have a gun or not. Second point, there is already enough on their shoulders. They don’t get paid enough to have that on their shoulders too.
Lack of media attention on the IL shooting and the other one makes it hard to believe / not believe what Cap is saying. Had the Parkland Officer taken out the offender, what would be said in the media about that one? Oh, its was just one target?
Now, another shooting in TX???
Something has gone wrong, really wrong in my life time. Used to settle disputes with rivals on the ball field or on the play ground with out weapons.
August 7, 2018 at 10:35 am
vin says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
New York gun control activists have no problem using tax dollars to disarm Americans and ignore our Constitution.
Enough is enough. Cuomo, we are coming for you. Line those attorney’s up and then raise taxes to pay for them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Retired UW says:
You ain’t seen nothing, yet. After DEMs take back control of Congress in November, the NRA and other domestic terrorist organizations are going to get some intense focus.
APRIL 3, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
2
You’ve failed to censor me and others with whom you disagree, including use of BOTS – which were subsequently blocked by IJ.
Glad to see this happening. When The State can come after a private enterprise like this, there needs to be push-back. NY is attempting to quash interstate commerce without any authority to do so. Good for the NRA for taking on this obvious overreach.
Bout damn time.
The problem with lawsuits like this is the only people that suffer are the tax payers and they are oblivious. When states do things, or the Federal government, there are usually a person or persons behind it. What ends up happening is the tax payer pays millions to file or defend it, while the governor or whomever walks away free from their decision. There needs to be some recourse against the persons illegal activity. Even if its one day or week in jail, something. Maybe first time, one day, the second time, one week, third time one month. These people need to stop using tax payer’s money just to make a political point, even though it’s not constitutional. They have enough lawyers working for them, that they should be able to tell them what they are doing is illegal or not. These states disobeying the constitution and over-riding Federal Law, should have their governors prosecuted as I stated above. If not, these weekly lawsuits will continue and our taxes will continue to go up. This is a great time to be a lawyer in America.
Agreed, would love to see such punishments imposed on all the legislators pushing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion that have been struck down by the courts repeatedly! Passing an obviously unconstitutional law is unacceptable.
I agree that all legislators and citizens who oppose gun ownership and support abortion rights are consistent in their intent to make people defenseless against criminals with guns owned illegally or abortion doctors with scalpels who violate the oath they took upon graduation(?) from med school.
Agent,
You thought wrong:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The NRA isn’t mad. Gun control freaks are mad, and don’t understand or believe in the US Constitution. NO GUN LAW will protect citizens from criminal law breakers who will find a way to own a gun illegally (based on ANY wording of gun control laws).
That’s a lie. The Carry Guard insurance contracts very specifically excluded coverage for intentionally criminal acts:
From Pages 3 & 4 0f the Chubb Carry Guard contract:
“NRA (SECTION 1s) 05 17
IV. EXCLUSIONS
O. any claim arising out of a criminal act as defined by applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws by an “insured” except this exclusion shall not
apply to an “act of self-defense”.
P. any claim caused by an “insured” while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, narcotics or any other mind-altering substance, as defined by
applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Retired UW
What exactly is reasonable gun control? Please do not reply banning assault weapons as Armolite 15 and its many variants are no more assault weapons or weapons of war than the M1 carbine or Rugers mini 14. It is only when a mentally deranged individual uses what is nothing more than a tool that the weapon becomes a bad thing. With that said please help me understand what is reasonable gun control, for me by the way it is fully enforcing the hundreds of laws already on the books.
you can have your musket. reasonable gun control is the removal of weapons that serve no purpose than killing as many humans as quickly as possible from circulation. so, yes, sentence #2 of your reply. they aren’t for hunting or personal protection.
What do you think your chances are when you door’s kicked-in and 2 or 3 home invaders waltz in. You might get 1 with your “hunting rifle”. You be lucky to get 2 with your 10 rnd magazine handgun. A semi-auto with a 30 rnd mag gives you a decent chance of coming out of this alive.
Why don’t my family and I deserve that chance?
where do you live that this is a regular occurrence?
Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?
sal…ironton, OH and yes, there are regular instances of this, not that it matters. Even if I live where its never happened, personal protection is EVERYONE’S RIGHT.
Ron…I don’t have children nor any around my home. Implying that a responsible gun owner cannot have quick access to a loaded weapon is BS. You know not of what you speak.
Dave, you should move somewhere safer.
Just use your car or knife, right? Conservatives keep “whatabouting” those talking points. Supposedly, cars and knives are just as effective in killing people so you could just grab your car keys or open up your dishwasher when they come waltzing in.
“Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?”
An idiotically ignorant question. The implication that a defensive weapon needs to be unloaded and locked in a safe for it’s owner to be responsible is moronic. A defensive firearm can be extremely secure while still accessible for defense. There’s nothing irresponsible about keeping defensive firearms loaded. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Firearms are used prolifically for self defense and defense of family, friends, and home in the US. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Good point, Bacon.
I keep a loaded harpoon by my front door in the highly likely event I get invaded by the land shark.
https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi3999373593
To be clear, I know of no State where its legal to possess a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun (except under severe restriction). Convicted felons, those dx with mental illness and pot smokers cannot pass the Federal Background Check, hence cannot purchase a firearm.
NRA members support background checks (that are already in place), not necessarily “stronger gun control laws”. Your statement on this point is misleading at best.
Overall, your demand that the negative be proved is foolish. If you want a law, show that it will have the desired effect and then we’ll think about it.
Dave,
He never said it was legal, he clearly said Illegal:
Certain firearms are illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal.
he even said ILLEGAL twice in his sentence.
And pot smokers cannot pass the federal background check….ummm ok! Do you think they are drug screening??!! I have yet to be asked to provide a urine, hair or mouth swab when purchasing a gun. Some people on this site are truly clueless and spew nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I admit, it is extremely entertaining!!
Well, Ummmm, George’s implication was something like “if only the rest of the USA had MA’s gun laws, we’d be moving in the right direction.” Its an old Straw-Man used by folks who can’t offer a cogent argument.
Fact is, (as I noted) most of the restrictions he cites are already in place in the rest of the country. MA’s licensure process stops no crime. Straw-Man
George,
I live in AZ which has been voted for the last couple of years as being the most gun friendly state in the union. Yet I cannot recall one mass shooting here, and I pray to God that one never happens. All gun laws do is impact honest people who are not a threat to anyone.
Again based upon my experience I would ask that someone show me how MA list of gun safety laws would solve today’s issues? The list provided are all controlled via the NFA so why does MA go one step further and make NFA firearms illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts? Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal as well as silencers. Can anyone point to a crime in the last 40 years that impacted large amounts of people where the criminal used one of these? Oh and by the way I can saw off a shot gun to 18 and 1/2 inches and it is still a legal weapon.
I keep saying it but the problem is not the gun it is the criminal behind the gun and a government that does not take proactive steps when informed of individuals who present a danger to themselves and others. It is easy to armchair quarterback but that is exactly what happened in the case of Parkland and the church shooter in Texas, the same government that you want to take away more rights from honest law abiding citizens did not do their job.
One more point and I will get off of my soapbox why does the government not go after every person who fails a instant background check that is due to a legitimate cause? It is a crime for a convicted felon to even attempt to purchase a weapon but very rarely does the federal government go after these people.
Common sense gun laws, for example, would be closing the “gun show loophole”, which the NRA says doesn’t exist. If a person walks into a gun store and tries to buy a weapon through an FFL, a background check happens before the sale can be completed. If that person is ineligible to own a gun, they will denied.
That same person can attend a gun show, or purchase a gun through a private sale, and no background check is required.
In Connecticut, where I live, any transaction, private included, requires a simple background check. We call the State Police, give them the name and permit numbers of both individuals, you wait about three minutes, and if both parties are eligible, they give you an approval number. You write that number on the paperwork, along with both parties information, and send it in to the State police and the town police where you live. It’s simple, and quick. And, you know you just sold your gun to a person who’s legally able to have it. What’s wrong with that?
The NRA continually fights against this, claiming there’s no loophole because it’s already illegal for felons and such to own a firearm, and that they should police themselves. It’s wrong.
THAT’S common sense gun law. And by the way, I’m a second amendment supporter, gun owner, hunter, and NRA member. The NRA can help us all by giving a little.
True and now that the firearm is on the grid the next step will be to pass a law that has law enforcement knock on your door when you don’t turn it in. Some people just don’t get it. But it is no secret their wet dream agenda is to disarm Americans.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
can you explain why you think this comment added something useful to the discussion?
From my limited knowledge of the Carry Guard program it would only reimburse the individual member for cost of defense if they were found not guilty or the charges were dropped, can someone please explain why this would be a bad thing in the Peoples Republic of New York? As to Lockton paying the NRA for the affinity program there may be an issue under NY law but question how all of the other affinity programs function throughout the country?
I would agree with the NRA’s stand relative to regulatory entities bad mouthing to the entire financial industry that a relationship with the NRA could be a problem if true certainly seems to me to overstep the authority of the department.
This is the United States of America. Land of the FREE and home of the brave.
Stop fighting each other over this and use that energy to think of a viable solution instead of hating each other for your beliefs. Remember: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
When seconds count, it only takes police minutes to get there. And the police are not obligated to put their life before yours – which is why you need the right to protect yourself with whatever you choose in a free country.
Countries with no guns still have shootings and then also, people find other ways to kill eachother with knives and other means. People kill people, not guns. Do knives kill people? No people kill people.
The time has come where home invasions do seem to be more prevalent. Having protection seems to make good sense in the one country where it is legal. You don’t know what you’re up against. The criminal has the element of surprise so a super gun in a responsible household makes sense.
The reason we have it in the constitution is to protect us from the government. When the government has more and stronger weapons than the people it serves, the people will suffer. History shows us that he citizens need the weapons otherwise, how will we keep the .01% in check. It has happened in the past, in many countries where governments have disarmed their own people, singled them out, and punished them.
I’m all for responsible gun ownership and an insurance policy that might have protected me in the slight and remote chance I might have to protect myself.
God Bless America where I have that right.
for those of you who say that no NRA member has ever been responsible for any mass killings: Timothy McVeigh doesn’t count?
Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun to kill people. I guess you are trying to support the NRA . . .
he had a concealed weapon and didn’t have a conceal carry permit when he was arrested
So what? What does that have to do with the NRA? Or the dead in Oklahoma City?
Ban Fertilizer! Stop the green lobby! Boycott Miracle Grow!
In other words, Craig is saying, “What about? What about? What about?” It’s his go-to.
McVeigh wasn’t an NRA member. He quit the NRA, viewing its stance on gun rights as too weak.
Off topic, is the school shooting in IL hitting the news your neck of the woods?
Yes, it is. From what I understand, it was a single target and not intended to be a mass shooting. But, the target was able to fire back and hit the shooter, chasing him away. Shooter was from Dixon, right? I spent time living in Bettendorf, which is basically Davenport. The best BBQ ribs are across the river in Rock Island. And now, I’m craving Jim’s.
Its my understanding that the gun man came into a hallway firing and the School Resource Office got to the shooter before the shooter could get to anyone.
Second time this has happened since Parkland Shooting. Building a strong case for Armed Security in schools. Two different School shooters taken out before they could do the damage they intended on doing so. Little to no press coverage on these two. But mass casualties…. Grab all the head lines.
FFA,
In both of these cases, there was only a single target. There was never any intention to be a mass shooting. The shooter was going after the resource officer in IL. That was his target – the 2 had history. Dixon kid fired at the resource officer and resource officer fired back. Dixon kid knew where he worked, was easier to track him down there. In the other case, the shooter did his damage, he shot who he wanted to and the bullet also caught someone he didn’t intend to.
I personally don’t want my daughters in a school with guns. I’m not against people owning them. There are tight controls to gain entry to our schools in my community. No sense in adding guns to the mix. Just my opinion.
I don’t have a problem putting armed security in schools – you lose me when the talk shifts to arming teachers. (To clarify: I’m using the indefinite pronoun of you – I’m not specifically referencing FAA, Captain, or any one individual).
I don’t believe arming teachers is the way to go either. First objection is a target is put on all teachers weather they have a gun or not. Second point, there is already enough on their shoulders. They don’t get paid enough to have that on their shoulders too.
Lack of media attention on the IL shooting and the other one makes it hard to believe / not believe what Cap is saying. Had the Parkland Officer taken out the offender, what would be said in the media about that one? Oh, its was just one target?
Now, another shooting in TX???
Something has gone wrong, really wrong in my life time. Used to settle disputes with rivals on the ball field or on the play ground with out weapons.
New York gun control activists have no problem using tax dollars to disarm Americans and ignore our Constitution.