I do what I wanna do, **** it.

[ark steel]

I own a shotgun, a deer hunting rifle and two .22s. You basically can't own a handgun in Canada or if you do it is useless. Handguns are for three things:
1. Target practice and you can target practice with a long gun.
2. Getting a small dick hard with all that power.
3. Killing people.

LOL, I guess if you got nothing logical, go with that. How much power does a .22 pistol have to harden a dick?

 

[Vader]

I've only ever held a couple of revolvers and only ever shot one. Didn't know they didn't have safeties.

Every gun I have ever had has had a safety, but, now, I wonder if the 30-30 lever action did. Didn't have it long and I was pretty young.

I'm sure the 30/30 did have one around the trigger or through the trigger housing. It's a great gun.

I own a shotgun, a deer hunting rifle and two .22s. You basically can't own a handgun in Canada or if you do it is useless. Handguns are for three things:
1. Target practice and you can target practice with a long gun.
2. Getting a small dick hard with all that power.
3. Killing people.

More bullshit. Guns are great for personal defense. Most don't want to drag out a hunting rifle if someone breaks in their house. But I'm sure your small dick would get hard over all that power that a powerful deer hunting rifle affords. Handguns are used for more than 3 things. But your limited knowledge of guns shows you don't know anything about them either. I've hunting with pistols before.

 

[SteelerSask2]

I've shot a moose, many white tail, bear, all kinds of water fowl and all kinds of small game. I've guided for some time in my youth and many of the Americans I worked with were super people. And many were douche bags like some of you sound. My guns stay locked in my basement in a cabinet where they should be. These boogey man people that are going to break into my home and kill my family and me don't seem to be in the news where I live. If they came in I' guess I'd take my chance with my Louisville and bear spray. I could live with whatever outcome came of that cause it wouldn't be my fault and I'd have done the best I could. But if I had a loaded ******* gun under my bed and my kid killed himself or his friend, I couldn't live with that. I've never known anyone who was saved by their own gun. EVER. But I do know that a kid brought his old man's .45 to school where my son goes a couple years ago. The gun shifted and went off in his locker. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

 

[Tibs]

I've shot a moose, many white tail, bear, all kinds of water fowl and all kinds of small game.

I've shot clay pigeons on the banks of the Colorado River with a shotgun, I've hunted deer, albeit with a bow & arrow. I've shot handguns and rifles doing target practice. I never once considered people could get their hands on these types of weapons without proper background checks. But no, 'Bama wants to take our guns, let's oppose anything - and everything - that is put forth as far as tightening gun control laws. It's my belief that some really good people, with good intentions, have been led by their noses by the NRA and far right-wing groups where they've completely lost their grip on common sense and reality. I hope these folks, good people, at least the conservatives I know personally, can come around and agree that certain limitations on gun rights is not a bad thing, in fact a neccessary step in limiting gun violence around the country.

 

[ark steel]

I've shot a moose, many white tail, bear, all kinds of water fowl and all kinds of small game. I've guided for some time in my youth and many of the Americans I worked with were super people. And many were douche bags like some of you sound. My guns stay locked in my basement in a cabinet where they should be. These boogey man people that are going to break into my home and kill my family and me don't seem to be in the news where I live. If they came in I' guess I'd take my chance with my Louisville and bear spray. I could live with whatever outcome came of that cause it wouldn't be my fault and I'd have done the best I could. But if I had a loaded ******* gun under my bed and my kid killed himself or his friend, I couldn't live with that. I've never known anyone who was saved by their own gun. EVER. But I do know that a kid brought his old man's .45 to school where my son goes a couple years ago. The gun shifted and went off in his locker. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

IIRC, most states require that any firearm in a household with children under 18 must be kept either in a locked cabinet/safe or have some lock on the gun (handgun, rifle, whatever) such that it may not be loaded/fired without the lock removed. I also think that it is federal law that guns be sold with such lock. I'd imagine there are a lot of people that ignore the law (assuming it is in their state), but they are, indeed, breaking a law that already exists. No need for another one, that I can see,

I know a guy who got a concealed carry permit a few years ago. Had to get a background check, give fingerprints, pay some money. Not a big deal, but it was time consuming. He was unable to just go buy a gun and pick it up. There may be some rule here that if you do have a CC, it makes the background check faster or somesuch, though. The point is, even with a CCP, If he is not actively carrying the gun, he has to have it locked away in his house. He can't sit on the couch and put the gun on the coffee table in front of him or leave it on the counter while he takes a ****. Nothing like that. Since you, clearly, cant CC an AR-15, other rifle or shotgun, it applies to those, too. If a child ends up with his gun, the gun owner is penalized unless the child stole them by breaking the locks or something along those lines.

 

[Superman]

Tell you what ... Round up all the guns used by criminals. Every single one. Obviously this is a hypothetical. Then see what the gun violence rate is. If it is still as high, then demand additional measures.

 

[Tibs]

Tell you what ... Round up all the guns used by criminals. Every single one.

That kind of, should of, be happening already, without any type of directive from the president, no?

 

[ark steel]

I never once considered people could get their hands on these types of weapons without proper background checks.

Back in the day (before I was 16 or so) I don't think any of the shotguns/rifles we bought had to go through a background check. They were all bought by our parents/grandparents and given to us. Handguns, to my knowledge, did require a background check then. Never handled one back then so don't really know.

At some point, long guns were added to the background check. The only people I know who have purchased guns while having something on their criminal record that would show up on a background check (and there have been quite a few) bought them illegally.

I can't figure out why people think that folks who sell guns to people they know are criminals are going to actually apply for the dealers license and start doing background checks. I'd bet the vast majority of individuals who do all of those "online sales" and sell guns at gun shows (outside of regular dealers), probably are not the kind who would fit the definition of a "seller" in any reasonable context. They may sell one or two guns here and there. In other words, a small, minority of guns sold in those venues by smallish group of people who might now be considered "dealers" because there is no threshold for the government to have to meet to determine you are a "dealer".

I'd also bet the minority of people who are selling a lot of weapons in those venues without a license are doing so knowing they are, probably, selling to criminals, haven't cared in the past and will continue to do so without a license and probably already qualify what anyone would consider a "dealer".

Every online gun dealer I have visited requires that the gun be shipped to a local FFL before I get it. NOT to me.

 

[Tibs]

Toddlers Shot More People In US Than Islamic Terrorists In 2015: 20 Senators Want To Know Why
http://reverbpress.com/politics/bat...e=social&utm_medium=sponsored&utm_campaign=bl

We’ve had 52 toddler shooting incidents In the U.S. vs. One Islamic terrorist attack in 2015.

As we whip ourselves into a frothing frenzy over Islamic terrorists in the wake of the Paris attacks, 20 Democratic senators want us to address a far more pressing threat: Toddler-aged shooters.

That’s right, toddlers.

In October, Christopher Ingraham’s “Wonk Blog” in the Washington Post revealed that an alarming number of us are getting shot by toddlers who get their hands on guns that aren’t stored and secured properly. So far, there have been at least 43 toddler shooting incidents in 2015. Oh wait, make that 52 toddler shooting incidents.

Meanwhile, in this year’s only Islamic terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tenn., five died and two were injured.

In 2015 so far, at least 13 toddlers have inadvertently killed themselves with firearms, 18 more injured themselves, 10 injured other people, and two killed other people.

And those numbers only include toddler shooting incidents (by children ages four and under): Every Town USA reports a total of 238 gun injuries and deaths by kids ages 17 and under. It’s likely that the numbers are even more grim, as incidents involving children and guns often don’t get reported. Ingraham looked into the stories behind the numbers and found that they nearly always follow the same pattern:

The stories go on and on like this: Roughly once a week this year, on average, a small child has found a gun, pointed it at himself or someone else, and pulled the trigger. Boys are disproportionately likely to do this: I could find only three cases where a girl under the age of 4 wounded someone with a gun. In 13 of the 43 total incidents, a child’s self-inflicted injuries were fatal.

Fast forward to Wednesday: After reading Ingraham’s post, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wrote a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) demanding that we address toddler shootings with the same sense of urgency and the same level of resources we devote to “fighting terrorism.”

Death and injury by firearm is one of the most significant public health threats to young people in communities across our nation. […] Given these stark statistics, prevention of gun deaths and injuries should be an essential component of the federal government’s commitment to public health and safety.

In an appeal to her red state colleagues, Sen. Patty Murray also points out that toddler shootings occur as often in rural areas as urban ones. 19 other U.S. senators signed the letter, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Charles Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand. And of course they’re all Democrats.

Why can’t we prevent toddler shooting incidents and gun violence?

Public health campaigns are proven to be effective for addressing public health issues like gun violence. Alas, the first step consists of doing research and analysis, and the GOP slashed all the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)’s research funding related to guns back in 1996. As Jeffery Wassman, VP of the RAND Corp. — a nonprofit, non-partisan global think tank — recently wrote in Newsweek:

There is one public health problem that has not benefited from rigorous research and analysis: gun violence. One important reason is that the government agency tasked with protecting public health, the Centers for Disease Control and and Prevention, has not funded any gun-related research since 1996, when Congress stripped the agency of funding for any such research that could be associated with gun control advocacy.

Ingraham mentions that other research organizations — like Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center — also shy away from gun research due to all the budget cuts and death threats.

 

[Vader]

I've shot a moose, many white tail, bear, all kinds of water fowl and all kinds of small game. I've guided for some time in my youth and many of the Americans I worked with were super people. And many were douche bags like some of you sound. My guns stay locked in my basement in a cabinet where they should be. These boogey man people that are going to break into my home and kill my family and me don't seem to be in the news where I live. If they came in I' guess I'd take my chance with my Louisville and bear spray. I could live with whatever outcome came of that cause it wouldn't be my fault and I'd have done the best I could. But if I had a loaded ******* gun under my bed and my kid killed himself or his friend, I couldn't live with that. I've never known anyone who was saved by their own gun. EVER. But I do know that a kid brought his old man's .45 to school where my son goes a couple years ago. The gun shifted and went off in his locker. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

I've never known anyone killed by heroin. So I guess it doesn't exist. See how ******* stupid that is? I guess we should have laws based on what the **** you've seen or known?

I've hunted almost all of north America. I've killed almost every animal in it at one time or another. So what? I've never know anyone who had a child killed by a gun. I've never known anyone to have a bad accident with one. But I do know a guy that killed an intruder with a guy.

I also know what the 2nd amendment says and I know ignorant people that want to bypass the constitution and put so many restrictions on them that nobody can have one legally.

 

[Tibs]

I also know what the 2nd amendment says and I know ignorant people that want to bypass the constitution and put so many restrictions on them that nobody can have one legally.

Who are these ignorant people? If they're not local or national lawmakers, then what does it matter what they think? Show me a single qoute or directive by the Obama administration that would keep anyone from legally owning a firearm. I'll sit by patiently waiting for your response.

 

[ark steel]

Toddlers Shot More People In US Than Islamic Terrorists In 2015: 20 Senators Want To Know Why
http://reverbpress.com/politics/bat...e=social&utm_medium=sponsored&utm_campaign=bl

We’ve had 52 toddler shooting incidents In the U.S. vs. One Islamic terrorist attack in 2015.

As we whip ourselves into a frothing frenzy over Islamic terrorists in the wake of the Paris attacks, 20 Democratic senators want us to address a far more pressing threat: Toddler-aged shooters.

That’s right, toddlers.

In October, Christopher Ingraham’s “Wonk Blog” in the Washington Post revealed that an alarming number of us are getting shot by toddlers who get their hands on guns that aren’t stored and secured properly. So far, there have been at least 43 toddler shooting incidents in 2015. Oh wait, make that 52 toddler shooting incidents.

Meanwhile, in this year’s only Islamic terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tenn., five died and two were injured.

In 2015 so far, at least 13 toddlers have inadvertently killed themselves with firearms, 18 more injured themselves, 10 injured other people, and two killed other people.

And those numbers only include toddler shooting incidents (by children ages four and under): Every Town USA reports a total of 238 gun injuries and deaths by kids ages 17 and under. It’s likely that the numbers are even more grim, as incidents involving children and guns often don’t get reported. Ingraham looked into the stories behind the numbers and found that they nearly always follow the same pattern:

The stories go on and on like this: Roughly once a week this year, on average, a small child has found a gun, pointed it at himself or someone else, and pulled the trigger. Boys are disproportionately likely to do this: I could find only three cases where a girl under the age of 4 wounded someone with a gun. In 13 of the 43 total incidents, a child’s self-inflicted injuries were fatal.

Fast forward to Wednesday: After reading Ingraham’s post, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wrote a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) demanding that we address toddler shootings with the same sense of urgency and the same level of resources we devote to “fighting terrorism.”

Death and injury by firearm is one of the most significant public health threats to young people in communities across our nation. […] Given these stark statistics, prevention of gun deaths and injuries should be an essential component of the federal government’s commitment to public health and safety.

In an appeal to her red state colleagues, Sen. Patty Murray also points out that toddler shootings occur as often in rural areas as urban ones. 19 other U.S. senators signed the letter, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Charles Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand. And of course they’re all Democrats.

Why can’t we prevent toddler shooting incidents and gun violence?

Public health campaigns are proven to be effective for addressing public health issues like gun violence. Alas, the first step consists of doing research and analysis, and the GOP slashed all the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)’s research funding related to guns back in 1996. As Jeffery Wassman, VP of the RAND Corp. — a nonprofit, non-partisan global think tank — recently wrote in Newsweek:

There is one public health problem that has not benefited from rigorous research and analysis: gun violence. One important reason is that the government agency tasked with protecting public health, the Centers for Disease Control and and Prevention, has not funded any gun-related research since 1996, when Congress stripped the agency of funding for any such research that could be associated with gun control advocacy.

Ingraham mentions that other research organizations — like Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center — also shy away from gun research due to all the budget cuts and death threats.

Did all of those minors get the guns from people who legally owned the gun in the first place? Very important information, but we will assume they did, for now.

There is a nice map in that article.

Several happened in and around Chicago. Do they not already have laws on the books that should have prevented it?

From 2012, but says 27 states mandate gun storage. Some even seem to be able to prosecute you if it "could" happen that a minor gets your gun even if it has never happened.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/breaking-gun-storage-laws-can-land-you-in-jail.html

The article links to a story about the state of WA which shows 2 and is not one of the 27 states with a gun storage law. Only 2 in a state with no mandatory storage law while a lot are happening in states WITH a storage law. Seems an odd correlation.

Look how many happened in FL and read the FL law below. There is already a law on the books that those people were breaking. What new law are you going to impose that changes that? You might make the penalites steeper, I suppose. Do you NEED a study that is absolutely going to be politically motivated and driven by a grant to some politician's supporter to tell you what the problem was here? I figured it out in a few minutes.

790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by lawa) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

[SUP]1[/SUP](3) As used in this act, the term “minor” means any person under the age of 16.
History.—ss. 2, 7, ch. 89-534; s. 1216, ch. 97-102.
[SUP]1[/SUP]Note.—Also published at s. 784.05(4).

 

[CharlesDavenport]

We need more restrictive gun laws for toddlers.

 

[Superman]

You would hope for that change, tibs...

 

[Vader]

Who are these ignorant people? If they're not local or national lawmakers, then what does it matter what they think? Show me a single qoute or directive by the Obama administration that would keep anyone from legally owning a firearm. I'll sit by patiently waiting for your response.

You can't pull your bait and switch on me. They want to change the laws so that more people can't own guns legally. So they change the definition of "legal".

Tell me... what was the point in the EO if it doesn't take guns away from people or keep certain people from having guns? Why give a teary eyed EO if nothing is going to change? I'll wait patiently for your response.

 

[SteelerSask2]

I've never known anyone killed by heroin. So I guess it doesn't exist. See how ******* stupid that is? I guess we should have laws based on what the **** you've seen or known?

I've hunted almost all of north America. I've killed almost every animal in it at one time or another. So what? I've never know anyone who had a child killed by a gun. I've never known anyone to have a bad accident with one. But I do know a guy that killed an intruder with a guy.

I also know what the 2nd amendment says and I know ignorant people that want to bypass the constitution and put so many restrictions on them that nobody can have one legally.

Come to Saskatchewan in mid November. You are a Steelers fan. I will take you out for a good feed of western Canadian beef and good Canadian Whiskey. Next day I'll take you to a place where you will see some of the biggest deer that walk the earth. I don't hold grudges and I don't talk politics when I'm drunk. I live in a community of 275K. Not only have I never heard of someone killing a violent intruder, I've never heard of a violent home invasion that wasn't linked to someones drug dealing business or some real shaddy double deal. Does it happen. Sure. Am I in the least bit worried about it. NO. Would I ever hold a firearm at my ready that is loaded or has ammunition near it. NO.
The constitution was written around 240 years ago. Some parts of it have evolved and changed. When the writers wrote it, they spoke to their own time. It is all they knew, as they could not forsee the future. If you believe you need to arm yourself to protect yourself against your government. OK. But I will remind you that your government has a more powerful military then like the next six strongest nations combined (or something to that effect). So your insurrection will probably be pretty difficult.

 

[Steeltime]

I think the hard-core interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the wrong side of history. Just like I think other right-wing issues like gay marriage and abortion are on the wrong side of history too.

So the government can read the 2nd amendment and say, "naaaah, **** has changed, I don't need to abide by that" because "history" supports that position?

Hey, when can citizens get the right to say, "naaaah, **** has changed, and I don't need to pay taxes, or obey the speed limit, or avoid doing any ******* thing I want because I think 'history' supports my decision"?

The entire theory behind our representative government is that the government has defined and limited powers, and the Constitution protects the citizens' rights, not the authority of the government. Once it simply ignores the rule book, then the government has no authority to tell citizens that they need to obey the rules.

And once you have a government that uses only threat of force - rather than agreement, and living up to the rules of governance - to rule, then you have tyranny. I believe you need to read a lot more history to understand how different America has been from all other previous governments, and how the delicate balance between government power and the rights of the citizens to be free from such governmental power has resulted in a society where we obey the rules because we understand it is in our best interests to do so, and because the government is obligated to obey the rules as well.

 

[Vader]

Come to Saskatchewan in mid November. You are a Steelers fan. I will take you out for a good feed of western Canadian beef and good Canadian Whiskey. Next day I'll take you to a place where you will see some of the biggest deer that walk the earth. I don't hold grudges and I don't talk politics when I'm drunk. I live in a community of 275K. Not only have I never heard of someone killing a violent intruder, I've never heard of a violent home invasion that wasn't linked to someones drug dealing business or some real shaddy double deal. Does it happen. Sure. Am I in the least bit worried about it. NO. Would I ever hold a firearm at my ready that is loaded or has ammunition near it. NO.
The constitution was written around 240 years ago. Some parts of it have evolved and changed. When the writers wrote it, they spoke to their own time. It is all they knew, as they could not forsee the future. If you believe you need to arm yourself to protect yourself against your government. OK. But I will remind you that your government has a more powerful military then like the next six strongest nations combined (or something to that effect). So your insurrection will probably be pretty difficult.

The constitution is the base for the American system. There is nothing wrong with it. The 2nd amendment is just as needed today as it was then. It's my right as an American to own a firearm and not have that right infringed upon by an over reaching government that wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey laws anyway so making more laws won't take a single gun away from them. You may not have heard of anyone killing a violent intruder but it happens often. I read about it all the time. And according to the law (constitution) I have every right to own a gun and defend myself. I have a right to own guns just because I like them. I have many of them. I won't even tell you how many. But it's a bunch. I've never hurt a soul and non of my weapons have either.... except maybe the WWII era rifles that I don't use to much because they are very valuable to me.

Maybe next year I'll take you up on your offer.

 

[Steeltime]

1) Pie in the sky liberalism. Everything can be had and had for free.

2) Easy Answer conservatism. Even the most complex issue can be boiled down to a three word slogan.

Here is what I find fascinating and underemphasized ... your first statement is in fact an accurate summary of today's Democrats. Bernie Sanders? Hello?

Meanwhile, your 2nd is just not true, and not even close. Ted Cruz graduated from Princeton with honors and from Harvard Law with high honors. Rand Paul is a doctor who graduated from Duke Medical School. Rubio graduated from University of Miami Law School. These candidates are vastly more intelligent than the average citizen, and I suggest brighter than any Democrat candidate.

And yet the "Oh, conservatives are dumb" meme just keeps waddling onward ...

 

[Steel Vanguard]

To be honest, I don't understand the rancor on either side of this thing.

1) I don't understand Obama pretending like he did some **** here. This will have ZERO effect on gun crimes because how many guns used in crime are the result of these kinds of purchases?

2) I don't understand the hand wringing by the 2nd Amendment crowd. It's an inconvenience to a small number of gun purchases. Nothing more. It's obnoxious and unnecessary, but it's not confiscation.

 

[Steeltime]

The woman's answer was that she has one of those guns with a safety on it. Really, one of those guns with a safety on it. I've been around firearms my whole life. Every gun has a safety on it.

Uhhhh, no.

Ever hear of a Glock?

 

[Steeltime]

I've shot clay pigeons on the banks of the Colorado River with a shotgun, I've hunted deer, albeit with a bow & arrow. I've shot handguns and rifles doing target practice. I never once considered people could get their hands on these types of weapons without proper background checks. But no, 'Bama wants to take our guns.

Let me ask a fair question, and request an honest answer ...

If we had no 2nd amendment, and if Obama did not face intense criticism for doing so, and if he could do what he personally wants to do without political fallout, do you believe Obama would make private gun ownership illegal in the United States?

 

[SteelerSask2]

I find this **** so funny. In a couple weekends I will be heading North for my annual sled trip. We will eat nothing but venison all weekend. I'd be the light weight gun owner and hunter. No one else there would own less than 5 or 6 guns and a couple of them basically live off wild meat all year. We will walk into a bar along the trail and most of the local originals will just leave cause we wreak redneck. But not one of these dudes will bleed like some of you about how Trudeau is going to take our guns and how the government is got these plans and how I'm gonna protect my own with my gun. Not one. And let me tell you Canada's conservatives are further left then your mos lliberal politicians. There is just no basis of fact in what you guys are talking about. There is a friggen registry here. Has been for decades. They are not coming for the guns.

 

[deljzc]

I think the importance of the 2nd amendment in maintaining a free United States is grossly overstated. It has been a propaganda story for generations used by the gun lobby to sell more guns and used by politicians as a cry against big government. There is no tangible evidence that guns in the hands of people increase or decrease their ability to protest government. In the 20th century what is far more controlling have been freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech. Those freedoms are the first to be taken and controlled by a repressive government, not taking people's guns.

For over 100 years we have seen many democracies and countries with freedoms survive without gun ownership. Those countries are not teetering on the brink of dictatorships or government persecution.

For all those that think the right to bear arms was some great vision of our founding fathers, I have just remind you the founding fathers also decided that just as important was to include an amendment that prohibited quartering of soldiers in your house (amendment 3). That sounds REAL important in today's world. Thank god that law is in our founding documents. How could we ever survive without amendment 3?

I put the important of amendment 2 pretty close to the importance of amendment 3. You crazy right-wingers have been spooked and sold a story that somehow having assault rifles will save you from a tyrannical government or help you survive a zombie apocalypse when neither is even close to true. The fact thousands of innocent people die each year because of your stubbornness and obtuse thinking still doesn't bother or deter you.

That's sad.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Actually the NRA I believe was simply an outdoors organization (much like the wildlife federation in Saskatchewan). Its purpose was to promote safe use of firearms, encourage people to hunt and provide training to youngsters. But I believe that it was taken over in I',m gonna say the mid 70's. And the leader who made it a political body I think I read wasn't even a ****** gun owner. So now its main purpose is to perpetuate itself by taking money as a powerful lobby group. To protect your rights!!!!