Petitions call on Apple, Amazon to cut ties with National Rifle Association

“Multiple online petitions are calling on Apple, Amazon and other streaming services to cut ties with the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) television channel,” Julia Manchester reports for The Hill. “‘NRATV is home to the NRA’s most dangerous and violence-inciting propaganda,’ Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts said in a statement to accompany the petition, according to HuffPost.”

“‘It’s time for tech leaders to acknowledge their role in helping the NRA spread this dangerous content and cut it out,’ she continued,” Manchester reports. “The friend of a father of one of the shooting survivors also launched a separate petition on change.org calling for Amazon to no longer offer the channel. ‘The NRA has long ignored its role in promoting gun violence and betrayed the names of good and responsible gun owners,’ Brad Chase said on the petition’s webpage.”

“Delta, United Airlines, First National Bank and Hertz are just some of the companies that have cut ties with the organization since the Parkland shooting. The NRA said in a statement the companies have ‘decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice,'” Manchester reports. “‘In time, these brands will be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve,’ the NRA said. ‘Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.'”

Read more in the full article here.

“Streaming service Roku has rejected calls to pull the plug on a channel operated by the National Rifle Association, after antigun activists, outraged over the Feb. 14 massacre at Parkland High School in South Florida that left 17 people dead, pushed the company to sever its ties with the NRA,” Jonathan Berr reports for CBS. “Roku, a closely held company, says NRA TV is complying with its content policies. Roku says it doesn’t censor or curate channels based on their content if they are operating lawfully otherwise.”

“NRA TV, which describes itself as a ‘comprehensive’ news source on Second Amendment issues, is free to Roku users and doesn’t carry any ads,” Berr reports. “Activists have also targeted Apple, Alphabet’s YouTube and Amazon, which also operate streaming services. Several Twitter users said they would drop their Apple TV and Amazon Prime Streaming services if the companies don’t meet their demands.”

MacDailyNews Take: Apple TV does not offer a “streaming service” (yet).

“On Monday, FedEx said it plans to keep offering discounts to NRA members, though it said it disagrees with the organization about gun policy,” Berr reports. “FedEx said it would ‘not deny service or discriminate against any legal entity regardless of their policy positions or political views.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Focusing on the identification and subsequent care of those suffering from mental illness is the surest, most direct way to prevent such instances of mass murder from occurring in the future.

Also, having law enforcement, from the local level to the FBI, not totally drop the ball, would be another productive avenue to explore.

Along with praying for the victims, families, and friends, we most fervently pray that a system will be devised wherein the severely mentally ill will be identified early and helped before they degenerate to the point where such calamitous tragedies befall innocents.MacDailyNews, February 15, 2018

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook prays for victims, families, and loved ones of mass murder in Parkland, Florida – February 15, 2018

209 Comments

        1. I came here to see how long the “There’s no problem here, stop talking about guns” people to show up. Disappointed it was the first post. Guess killing children is what America is all about now. #soproud

            1. The problem with the gun-grabbers is that they know nothing about guns.

              Educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise, you just sound stupid to those of us who know which guns are which and what each can do.

              The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. Proposing to ban firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.

              http://www.assaultweapon.info

      1. So having ‘moral’ principles based on the protection of children and the sanctity of life…makes you a Nazi and a communist?
        That’s logic based on insanity and a pathological hatred of humanity.
        I sincerely hope Tim Cook comes out with an explicit dissociation with the NRA, a condemnation of gun culture and a restatement of Apple’s liberal principles as portrayed by Steve Jobs and now embodied in Apple’s DNA. Then you deplorable sociopaths can boycott all things Apple and just fsck off. The moral majority of Apple users will be happier supporting a company that pisses you off.
        Just get a backbone and have the courage of your convictions, make a principled stand and abandon Apple. The rest of us will cheer you on your merry way to hell.

        1. Sorry but you can pretend that getting rid of guns will somehow rid your fantasy utopian world of crazy evil people (or criminals that would just as soon kill you as spit on you). Newsflash-it won’t. Evil people will ALWAYS find a way to kill. Even if its a rock, a pair of scissors, a truck, a homemade pressure cooker bomb, a shank, or their bare hands.

          Now back in the real world the rest of us will choose to protect and defend our homes, our friends, and family with a gun. And yes even the scary looking ones like the AR-15. Because we’re protected by a constitution and we choose not to live our life as victims (and we certainly don’t rely on a 20+ minute police response when that is far to late).

          If evil befalls my family, I pray I would have a chance to save them, however small or remote that chance might be.

          Maybe you should move to south Chicago where guns are illegal. Let us know how that works out for you.

            1. Or other countries that have turned into shitholes because they gave up their gun rights and allow a massive influx of immigrants who rape their women and are destroying their culture? Think Sweden. Yeah please tell me more about how wonderful these “other countries” are while hiding the fact many deal with far worse problems than giving their free citizens the right to defend themselves from evil.

        2. Sure. Let have Apple also ban any app that has firearms, any Apple TV channel that shows firearms, etc. etc. Otherwise they would be what most liberal and progressives are….flaming hypocrites (those liberals and progressives that want to ban firearms depend on firearms to stay alive, they just don’t want YOU to have any)

      1. Anyone who does this should be shot or put in a mental institution. Because they’re fcking crazy. We don’t waste our time debating pickaxe ownership now do we?

        We provide security at airports, concerts, gov’t buildings, festivals, etc. Shouldn’t we have a serious conversation about better security at our schools including arming teachers?

          1. From what we read in the UK, neither of your two parties can do anything. They are almost as incompetent as our Theresa May circus, but without the fashionable shoe collection.

            What does all this have to do with Apple?

            1. Apple distributes NRA TV, so is a target of pressure to stop.

              You are right, the political parties in the US are hamstrung. Successful important legislation is always heralded as a miracle of across-the-aisle cooperation.

      2. So how many people did she manage to kill with that ax? You have to get within arms length with that implement. Silly woman should have had a cache of assault rifles, after all she has the right town as many as she wants.

        1. If this lunatic killed your child with an axe would it matter how many others she killed? No of course it wouldn’t. I don’t know about you but I’d hope someone at the school would shoot that B dead before she killed my child.

          Maybe you’d prefer to wait for the police and coroner to arrive to put your child in a bag?

          1. Just illustrating how stupid it is to make the arguement that if you ban/restrict ownership of assault rifles, you should also consider doing the same for sharp implements. Etc.

      3. Killing people is illegal last time I checked. Yet, here we are. Criminals and the mentally ill still kill people. How will making gun ownership illegal make any difference?

        Blowing up bombs in Times Square, also illegal. Crashing airplanes into buildings too. Attacking pedestrians with knives… illegal.

        Laws cannot change the human heart.

        1. Reducing access to implements of destruction *will* reduce the destruction made with those implements.

          I don’t know if you have kids — it’s not relevant, except maybe you’ll understand my analogy better if you do: I have two small ones. They’re not allowed to touch the sharp knives in my kitchen. (knife posession by small children is illegal in my house).

          I also put those knives out of their reach. I find this step necessary exactly BECAUSE laws can’t change the human heart.

        1. No, citizens are not part of a militia in modern society. Militias were colonial armies, modeled on old english village defense. They were trained and drilled weekly by professional soldiers, and comprised of men serving by draft to defend the fledgling colonies against Indian attacks. They were authorized incolonial charters. This is the history of the Massachusetts militia:

          https://history.army.mil/reference/mamil/MAMIL.HTM

          As you can see, this history bears no likeness at all to self-proclaimed citizen soldiers of today. Read closely and you will see that muskets and ammunition were closely controlled back then too.

          Your Constitution grants you the right to keep arms so that you can defend your colony against attack in a moment’s notice. Back in the day, a real militiaman would be punished for firing his weapon when not commanded to do so by his commanding officer, or for having a gun within town limits when not under direct training by the commanding officer.

          You yanks ought to read more history.

          1. you are mistaken…the “militia” is indeed the body of the citizens, as iterated by James Madison himself and re-affirmed in Supreme Court decision Hellman v District of Columbia.

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
            – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

            “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. (Hellman v DC)”

            PS: We know our history, you limey’s need to worry about muslims destroying your daughters and your country.

            1. PPS: Capiche is the standard English spelling of the word, usually followed by a question mark, meaning do you understand? It comes from the Italian capisci. The word occasionally appears in several other spellings, including capeesh and capische, but these are far less common than the standard one.

              you are batting .000

            2. The founding fathers, including James Madison did not want a standing army, thus a regulated militia made up of citizens who could be called up for defence was more attractive to them (see the quotes to follow).

              The meaning of words is bound up in context. The context of the second amendment includes the founding father’s distrust of a standing army. We realize that the world has changed since then, and we don’t question the need for a standing army in today’s world (although we may have differences of opinion on how much money should be spent on defence, how the armed forces should be utilized, etc… – see second quote of Madison below about his fear of never-ending war and its threat to the U.S. democracy). Why is it that the second amendment and Madison’s definition of a well-regulated militia are plucked out of context, and used to justify a fight against any type of gun regulation. Those that hold the NRA’s position certainly would accept that in the 21st century the country needs a standing army, but won’t consider that the current situation also calls for some sane thinking about gun regulation? We have types of firearms and accessories (e.g., bump stocks) that can make mass shootings possible. These didn’t exist at the founding of the country. It would be hard for an individual to perpetrate a mass shooting if they had a single flint-lock rifle that took at least a minute to re-load. Regulation does not mean taking everyone’s guns. Not all regulation is bad (sorry, libertarians…) – it must make sense, it must be sane, it must retain checks against government over-reach. Why is it that gun violence per capita is so much higher in the USA than other mature democracies, even in countries that have lots of guns (like Canada). Fear – that is fed daily.

              Here’s the quotes from James Madison:
              The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies.

              For example, James Madison said:
              In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

              Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:
              Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

      1. What’s an “assault weapon?”

        It’s a made up term, that’s what. It arose to prominence during the Clinton administration.

        Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles.”

        1. ever hear of a STG 44?

          the sturm gewehr 44? quite literally an “assault rifle” first of its kind, capable of both automatic and semi automatic fire developed and issued by the germans late in world war two.

          it was even the inspiration for the now world (in)famous russian kalasnikov we all remember from vietnam and since

          so the term “assault rifle” , or assault weapon if you prefer, goes back considerably further than the clinton administration.

          as far as the mini 14 goes, it doesn’t resemble a non scary hunting rifle so much as it does the gun it was modeled after the m 14 rifle

          which itself evolved from the .30 cal. m1 garand of world war two and korea fame.

          all they did was shrink the gun a bit and drop the caliber from 7.62 caliber to .223 to make it suitable for hunting.

          you might considering paying a little closer attention to the history of firearms before posting

  1. Perhaps we should start a petition to take away these people’s freedom of speech, and see what they have to say about someone trying to take away their rights.

    1. … the stupid bastards don’t seem to comprehend the fact that the 2nd Amendment is there to enforce their 1st Amendment rights. But they’d rather keep their heads up their asses and believe that a beneficent government will always do their bidding.

  2. Regarding the 5th fact above: Gun control advocates love to say that such things could never happen in America. In truth, they are right. It can’t happen in America because we have 80+ million gun owners ready to stop the government from doing it. If the gun control advocates had their way, much like their beloved gun-free zones, they would pave the way for, murder, tyranny and genocide.

    Molon Labe

    1. Great poster and it is backed up with sources.
      Not like the garbage plastered all over FB.

      Well, FB and Twitter is all bots and fake accounts, so that needs to be ignored.

      1. #1 is widely disputed, as there are now 9 or 10 different definitions of “mass shootings” — this number falls apart under most of them.

        #2 is correct. One hypothesis is that gun violence increased after lead was added to gasoline (and by proxy to the air) and fell after it was removed. A very interesting statistic.

        #3 is splitting hairs. “Gun shows” are places where individuals gather to sell firearms to other individuals, just as they could outside of a “gun show.” These person-to-person sales do not require background checks. While this does NOT apply exclusively to gun shows, it does apply to most sales made at gun shows, and gun shows account for the majority of person-to-person sales.

        #4 is irrelevant as an argument against stronger gun controls. Using a gun in self-defense becomes less important/common when perpetrators don’t have guns.

        #5 is correct. Although the intent of the 2nd Amendment was likely to protect the ability of the government to raise military support from the populace to defend against foreign enemies, history tells us that protection from one’s own government is worth keeping, too.

    2. If you think your pea shooters can stop the government’s toys, you’re delusional. If you further think that you’re entitled to the same toys, you’re out of your friggin mind.

      Or should you be allowed to buy combat drones, tanks and nukes?

      1. If you’re afraid of the thought of defending your right as a free human you’re beyond hope.

        Just hide behind those of us with guns and stay out of the way and keep your screaming to a minimum.

        1. This is exactly the kind of redneck doofus delusional thinking we can do without. Morons with guns is not exactly assuring. They all imagine themselves as RAMBO – and then one day they snap.

            1. Fred the Head on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:05 pm
              Hmmm, who doesn’t like lawful, decent, respectful, steadfast citizens owning firearms? Nazis, Communists, totalitarian regimes violating human rights.

              Like

              48 Votes
              Reply
              GoeB on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 10:46 pm
              Exactly right …

              What is it about Delusion, Irony_Fail and Hoof swallowing you don’t understand?
              #verbal _diarrhoea by the morally bankrupt.

          1. The latest mass shooting in Texas was stopped by a member of the NRA with an AR-15.

            But go ahead with your name calling and fantasy thinking because that’s all you’ve got when reality slaps you in the face.

        2. My rights as a free human are BESTOWED upon me by my CREATOR! It says it right there way before any of the Amendments. Even before the Constitution.

          Should one need to revolt against their government, they should get guns the old fashioned way, illegally!

          And still, I favor licensing, not total abolishment, but we can’t even begin to discuss licensing details when the whole thing is not even on the table.

          1. So you favor “licensing”? Like a government agency to decide if you should have a license and if it should be revoked? Perhaps you’re late paying your taxes or have an outstanding speeding ticket maybe those are good reasons not to give you a license?

            Do you begin to see where your “license” argument falls apart? I’m guessing not.

            1. Like I said, we can’t begin to discuss details. It’s not on the table. I do think, and insist on, all firearms being registered as a condition. I want to know what you’re packing and how much. You know, in case you have an armory, and I live across the street from you.

            2. Two things:

              1) it is NONE of your business how I exercise my Second Amendment rights.

              2) it is NONE of MY business how YOU exercise your First Amendment rights in that beautiful brain of yours.

              Parallel construction: Both are hidden from view …

            3. You’re absolutely right on both counts. Seems though that there’s ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. We could use some clarity. How do you guys call it….? “Repeal and replace”?

              Don’t worry, just as with the ACA, it ain’t gonna happen, that is until there’s a wall built around these “future voters” that have more balls and scruples than the two generations before them.

            1. I did, at the movies. Not relevant. If you want a gun I at least provide a means of getting one. Should it come to fighting in the streets against the Ruskies, that’s when the government itself arms the populace. And where’s the infantry anyway?

            2. Absolutely correct.

              Not only that, you don’t register or tax a constiutational RIGHT. Simple as that.

              A car is a economic product and a privilege to own — NOT A RIGHT.

              Nuff said …

      2. OK, lets say the government unleashes it’s ‘toys’ against the entire US population. Well, first off, they don’t have enough ‘toys’ to begin with. Second off, I’m sure most American soldiers would not just go and kill their friends, family and neighbors, if ordered to do so. And even if something as incomprehensible like that were to even begin to happen, America’s firearm owners would shut that shit down pronto.

        1. I agree the US soldier would be hesitant to kill US citizens. But it’s you guys that want to protect against them.

          You’re out of your mind if you think you can take on the US Military. If they send drones and missiles, what the heck are you going to kill? If you want drones and missiles for yourself, you’re nuts, that aint happening.

    3. Oh great, NRA propaganda. Why do you think people are sick of it. And sick of them.

      Saying that more guns would stop gun violence, is like saying all a diabetic needs is more chocolate. The logic is so dumb.

        1. What the f*ck is a 2nd Amendment patriot Geo? Are we now getting into selective patriotism? If you said Constitutional patriot, meaning the whole Constitution it’s a different story.

          I disagree with the ambiguity of the 2nd, yet I agree when you say that as written it’s a right. Though I favor a new Amendment to clarify the 2nd.

          I’m using you as an example because I actually respect you, though I disagree. There’s no such thing as “you’re a patriot if…”

          Soldiers and Cops don’t have sole providence over the flag, for instance. We all do. And the flag doesn’t even define us, we define it. Same with Patriotism and the Constitution. It’s OUR Constitution, and in my opinion it may need clarity, but it’s perfect in it’s logical completeness and integrity. The greatest secular document ever written, IMHO.

          1. Fired up?

            I was simply trying to say constitutional patriots that happen to be NRA members value the Second Amendment at the top of their list.

            Logically follows, constitutional patriots of all stripes whether they value race, sexual orientation, speech, whatever — have their OWN pet favorite issue. Nothing wrong with that, so I am at a loss here.

            The unifying thread is we are all constitutional patriots.

            “It’s OUR Constitution, and in my opinion it may need clarity, but it’s perfect in it’s logical completeness and integrity. The greatest secular document ever.”

            The “greatest” — amen, brother …✌️

    1. I heartily agree. Their only defense was they thought the gun massacre was going on outside. But that means they visually could not verify that, meaning they didn’t investigate, meaning – abject cowardice. And a total failure to live up to their job description.

      “To protect and to serve” but only when the odds favor the officer. Instead of being heroes they can look forward to a life of scorn, disgrace, and unemployment.

    2. 4 of the sheriff’s deputies refused to do their duty & confront the shooter.

      And he still has the nerve to tell us only police should have guns.

      After a school shooting in 1974, Israel passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided gun training to teachers & started running frequent active shooter drills.

      There have only been 2 school shootings since then, & both have ended with teachers killing the shooters.

      1. Australia had its worse mass shooting in 1996. The then conservative government introduced sweeping gun control reforms that included a gun buy-back scheme the resulted in over 1 million guns being handed in. Australia has not had a mass shooting since then. There were over 14 in the decade prior to 16 (mass meaning 4 or more people). The US has 103 guns per 100 people. You cited Israel, which for comparison has 7.3 guns per 100 people.

      2. You might also have mentioned that individual gun homicides, gun suicides, and accidental shootings in Australia have gone down very substantially since 1996 without any corresponding rise in non-gun homicides or suicides.

        In the UK, with even tighter gun controls, the death rate from firearms is 0.23 per 100,000 population (including 0.02 from homicide and 0.15 from suicide). The rate in the US is 10.54 per 100,000 (3.60 from homicide and 6.30 from suicide).

        Before somebody points out that Switzerland has high gun ownership and a low murder rate, note that the reason is that almost all gun owners are part of an actual “well-regulated militia” and receive training. Their weapons are registered and can easily be confiscated in case of any danger to public safety. In other words, it is exactly how most Americans saw the Second Amendment before the 2008 Heller decision.

        No, the US is in a class of its own when it comes to being a First World country with a Third World homicide rate.

        1. It’s because in the United States, there is so much more to piss off citizens than in the rest of the world. We have rights and expectations that exceed those of other developed countries, and to secure them we require guns. Treaties are treacherous, diplomacy is retarded, political promises are worthless. Only a universally armed populace can insure liberty – properly trained at the shooting range, to be sure. – Which should be funded locally, not through federal taxation without representation. Teachers should not be armed, as Trump advocates – it obviously detracts from their primary mission to educate – but more importantly, who would pay to arm teachers and pay for their marksmanship training? Only a federal mandate would suffice, and that amounts to a tax – an indirect tax on guns; the membership of the NRA would be unpleased with that. I know I’d be ticked off. Why can’t the geniuses that run our country screw their heads on right for once and understand their responsibility to draft and pass a triage bill – one that would explicitly quantify an acceptible high school body count, and trigger cutbacks only when that body count is exceeded? Congress is a bunch of limp dicks. I’ll campaign for anyone else next time around. I can’t see paying them for doing nothing.

  3. A nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution from uninformed, knee-jerking fools, actresses, and idiots did not murder students and teachers in cold blood.

    Some random crazy fuck did.

    The local police and U.S. FBI fucked it up so badly, they have blood on their hands, too, not the NRA.

    The actual solution to the problem: BRING BACK THE LOONEY BINS. Lock the deranged up like we used to when there were no mass shootings. Guns have been legal in the U.S. for 230 years. What’s changed? BRING BACK THE LOONEY BINS and LOCK UP THE CRAZY FUCKS, don’t arm them and coddle them until they go off.

      1. “But then, there is personal defense, by far the most controversial rationale for unmitigated gun rights. Proponents of this school of thought suggest that firearms – even automatic weapons – are necessary for protecting their homes from intruders and from violent criminals, both of whom may be similarly armed. They use this argument to justify owning weapons with silencers, expanded magazines, and semi-automatic triggering mechanisms.

        What they ignore though, is that in the days of James Madison, none of these technologies existed, nor was there any conception that they ever would be.

        The weapons with which Madison was familiar were essentially muskets, in addition to rudimentary pistols and rifles. A competent user could generally only take a single wildly inaccurate shot, and then would likely find himself rummaging around with a ram-rod (and a powder bag he had to tear with his teeth) for as much as a minute before being able to take another. There was virtually no way an individual could maim two people before being subdued, let alone 32 as at Virginia Tech, or 26 in Sandy Hook Elementary – the site of what is now the deadliest school shooting in US history (in 2012 that is).

        The beauty of Madison’s musket was that, without being truly dangerous in large scale, it remained effective for personal defense. In addition to the propulsion mechanism, muskets were also outfitted with bayonets for issuing blows at short range, which could be used to subdue an attacker without killing them. When people did die from these weapons, it was often because of lead poisoning or bacterial infection. While the weapons of Madison’s era could be used for offense, and could certainly inflict deadly damage, they were only advantageous in situations involving group combat – not for an individual shooter to inflict quick and wide-scale harm.

        If we accept the argument that today’s AK-47s fit the purpose and circumstances of Madison’s muskets, the fact that this nation experiences the insanity of mass murder is no longer surprising. The nature of this latest shooting in Connecticut, where the vast majority of the victims were young children, will hopefully shake us from this mindset. As families seek healing in the days and weeks ahead, lawmakers should consider specific reforms to curb gun violence, and they should start with access.

        They can attempt to close loopholes, regulate sales, mandate more thorough background checks and waiting periods, raise awareness about mental health, or embark on a whole host of alternate approaches. But if we are continuing to defend the Second Amendment without restriction in a 21st-century context, what America really needs is to send our firearm technology back in time. American law can and should limit what technology is legal for citizens to access and own.”

        1. “…in the days of James Madison, none of these technologies existed, nor was there any conception that they ever would be.”

          Well then, turn of your computer and dig out your quills and ink wells.
          Computers did not exist, nor was there any conception that they ever would be.”

          So the first amendment should only support the written and broadcast word of that era according to “your interpretation”?

          1. …and let me add, guns and weapons need to keep up, not because of the criminals, but to defend ourselves from our own government if they go all “rogue” and “dictatorish” on us. Then we the people keep them in check and take them out if need be.

            Please see: Germany, Soviet Union, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia…

          2. The document was written with the understanding of that era’s weapon’s limited technology. You want a “Hail Mary” pass so you can enjoy acquiring increasingly destructive weapons? Pathetic.

            The computer analogy is so weak as to be nonexistent, a desperation argument at it’s lamest. Using a horse & buggy vs. cars type scenario is irrelevant.

            Bottom line is it’s extremely doubtful the framers of the Constitution would want average citizens owning military grade weapons capable of mass murder without restriction. A game of weapons escalation is folly.

            1. “Bottom line is it’s extremely doubtful the framers of the Constitution would want average citizens owning military grade weapons capable of mass murder without restriction. “
              Average citizens at the time already owned military grade weapons without restriction. Hello?

              Witness, the magnificent BIRTH of the Second Amendment!

              Fast forward to 2018, there are over 200,000 gun restrictions in the U.S. Automatic weapons have been totally banned in the U.S. since October 1986.

              Gun purchasers have to pass background checks. Faulty as it is because the background check system does NOT update OR include mental illness records.

              Congress, get off your arse …

            2. Citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own military weapons period. There is no legitimate purpose for this. Loopholes need to be fixed stat. Modifications that allow automatic fire function made illegal and highly prosecutable. Magazines either eliminated or reduced in size. Simple.

              And I could care less if 99.9% of all gun owners are “safe and sane.” It’s the .1% insane that bother me.

            3. “Citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own military weapons period.“

              Agreed!

              But what you fail to recognize is scary looking semi automatic weapons are NOT military grade because they are not automatic.

              Capish?

            4. You can do better than that lame line of reasoning. Try to ACT responsibly in what you do or don’t support. Covering your ears and saying loudly “LA LA LA LA LA LA!!” to drown out the consideration of serious adult issues is not a serious option.

            5. What “lame line of reasoning?”

              Totally factual and good to read you did not dispute. Because you don’t have a leg to stand on.

              Nothing.

              “LA LA LA LA LA LA!! …

            6. It is painful to see you slaughter a beautiful language.

              It is not “capish”, it is “capisce”. Please spend more energy on learning to use your Apple device and less time comparing the size of your pistols. It’s not very gentlemanly.

            7. Please notice I was purposely using the same spelling of someone else in a humorous putdown way.

              I’m not the one with a gun problem. Look around here and you’ll see the palpable gun nut paranoia from little boys afraid of losing their destructive toys and caring little for the fall out in society.

              I support gun rights but not assault weapon rights that are weapons of mass human casualties and made for little else. Sorry you’re not terrible sympathetic either – which seems very “unladylike.”

          1. And how does that remotely equate to increasingly destructive weapons easily finding themselves in the hands of the mentally disturbed?

            You guys love this “hey look over here at something stupid I just thought up” illogical approach that bears no relevance to the issue at hand. If you were in the military you’d be Major Fail. Obviously weapons technology and access to it is of far graver concern.

            1. Well, I certainly agree that a person like you shouldn’t own a firearm. You seem particularly irrational and squirrelly. Of course, the fact that the majority of legal and lawful firearm owners don’t commit atrocities is a fact you can’t understand which means that you have a profound inability to think logically and robustly.

            2. “And how does that remotely equate to increasingly destructive weapons easily finding themselves in the hands of the mentally disturbed?”

              Gee, let me guess. I believe the Trump administration will FINALLY fix this problem, that the gun control Democrats for decades, failed to adequately address …

            3. Doubtful Trump’s heart is in it. I don’t see why there is any controversy over proposed changes. I do see a sea change of public opinion if people on this page and the NRA remain intransigent. There will get to a point where people will have had enough of the NRA having it’s way. This could also have huge consequences for the right as votes start swinging to the left to get gun control action in Congress. Right now I would not want to be a politician with his or her’s hand in the NRA till.

            4. “There will get to a point where people will have had enough of the NRA having it’s way.”

              Defending the Second Amendment is “NRA having it’s way.”

              Sorry to read you do not understand.

              “This could also have huge consequences for the right as votes start swinging to the left to get gun control action in Congress.”

              I guess you missed the news that recent gun shows and gun sales were off the charts. Not a surprise really.

              “Right now I would not want to be a politician with his or her’s hand in the NRA till.”

              Well, that’s because you are riding on media overreaction cluelessness that happens with every mass shooting.

              I guess if I quoted FBI statistics as to how small mass shootings factor into overall gun deaths and how many times guns are used to avert crimes, would not matter to you.

              Oh sorry, I will not vote for anyone that does not support the constitutional STALWARTS of the NRA …

            5. Sure the gun nuts show out in force when they become paranoid. If anything that’s an attribute that suggest they shouldn’t have guns.

              The NRA is not the Second Amendment and has no right to dictate to anyone what those rights are. That is up to legal interpretation. Sorry you have a hard time following that.

              Taking money from the NRA is really taking money from gun manufacturers who have a vested interest in supplying hyperactive gun nuts like you. Manufacturers could care less about who gets killed, much like the tobacco industry.

              In terms of population mass shootings are a rounding error but they are not an acceptable rounding error!!! Not if reasonable precautions and policies can be taken and obsessive and paranoid gun nuts can get over themselves.

              We will be on opposing sides of the NRA fence then. I was much more neutral about this and in fact supportive of gun ownership but you have swayed me further away from this seeing the kind of mentality of guys like you with an overriding sense of hot lead entitlement above all other considerations. And not a whit of the spirit of cooperation in meaningful gun control. Congrats!

            6. “Sure the gun nuts show out in force when they become paranoid.”

              Proud gun owners like myself are NOT NUTS. But certainly you qualify with drama queen terms.

              “Paranoid?” No, I can hit the bullseye better than most.

              “The NRA is not the Second Amendment and has no right to dictate to anyone what those rights are.”That is up to legal interpretation. Sorry you have a hard time following that.

              Yes, the NRA is not masquerading as the Constitution. That said, it is the number one defender of gun rights.

              “Taking money from the NRA is really taking money from gun manufacturers who have a vested interest in supplying hyperactive gun nuts like you.”

              “is really” fantasize much?

              “Gun nut?” I expected better from you. I support the Second Amendment, period.

              “Manufacturers could care less about who gets killed, much like the tobacco industry.”

              Wow, we talking for thousands of people here? I’m sure the local DA will take your case to trial.

              “In terms of population mass shootings are a rounding error but they are not an acceptable rounding error!!!”

              Less than five percent, sorry.

              “Not if reasonable precautions and policies can be taken and obsessive and paranoid gun nuts can get over themselves.”

              Absent reasonable thinking and persuasive arguments that drift into name calling, nothing to see here.

              “We will be on opposing sides of the NRA fence then.”

              Life member here and damn proud of it!

              “I was much more neutral about this and in fact supportive of gun ownership but you have swayed me further away from this seeing the kind of mentality of guys like you with an overriding sense of hot lead entitlement above all other considerations.”

              There you go again. Misinterpretation. Extrapolation. I have said nothing to “sway you” from supporting the constitution. I don’t appreciate your dishonest attempt to deflect away from the reason. That would be YOU.

              “And not a whit of the spirit of cooperation in meaningful gun control.”

              Gun control is hitting your target and acting responsibly. Something I suspect you will NEVER UNDERSTAND …

          2. Fred you’ve been off the squirrel scale for some time. The fact more gun owners haven’t gone on a rampage is a godsend and I agree most keep their guns in check but that’s not the issue. Only takes a few to create total havoc. So being disingenuous ain’t helping your arguments.

            A few AR-15’s in the hands of the deranged will always get lots of attention and calls for control of these type of weapons. What part of that don’t you understand? Or choose to stubbornly misunderstand?

            1. “A few AR-15’s in the hands of the deranged will always get lots of attention and calls for control of these type of weapons. What part of that don’t you understand? Or choose to stubbornly misunderstand?”

              Well, I don’t pay attention to Democrats using any excuse to restrict Second Amendment rights …

            2. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE UNFETTERED RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO INCREASINGLY POWERFUL MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS!!!!!! Sheesh!

              Sorry for shouting but no one is restricting reasonable ownership of guns. You need to stop thinking that’s what’s happening. You and guys like you are the problem and children and other innocents die because of you.

            3. “You and guys like you are the problem and children and other innocents die because of you.”

              You are lucky you are not across the table from me.

              I AM NOT THE PROBLEM!!!

              CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

              NO ONE DIES BECAUSE OF ME!!! …

      1. In every state of the union, arms are controlled.

        details obviously vary, but
        – you have to be of age
        – you have to have training
        – most states have registries
        – you can’t conceal your gun without a permit
        – there are limits on type of gun (automatics are banned), clip size, etc.

        Other nations go further, restricting ownership of ammunition and outright banning handguns and easily concealed weapons.

        Now when people say that you should also keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, you think that’s a step too far? Think before you respond, please.

        Either you want to reduce mass murder or you don’t. The NRA does not. The NRA wants to roll back human evolution to the tribal era when might made right. Strongest tribe wins. Every day was a weapons race to make sure you can kill the next invading horde. Why change now, just because humans now have the ability to exterminate each other with hand carried weapons by the hundreds.

        Do you oppose my right to fly a spy drone with onboard missiles? Why? Just because I can now see your daughter sunbathing by the pool, as well as be able to vaporize everyone in your backyard with the push of a button, doesn’t mean that I should have any limitations placed on me. Right? So with that settled, I’m going to make money selling these little drone warbirds because darn it, that’s the American way. Until I pull the trigger and 100 people die, it’s all good. As a society, let’s amass these weapons in huge quantities until they fall into the hands of a crazy person and only then shall we ask where we could have gone wrong. Think about it. No weapons race ends well.

        1. “Either you want to reduce mass murder or you don’t. The NRA does not.”

          Mike, I cannot put in stronger terms how irresponsible and totally wrong your clueless comment.

          I have been a lifetime member of the NRA since the ill conceived Clinton assaults weapons ban, that has since expired for good reason.

          NRA members LOVE LIFE over guns.

          Something you will never, ever, understand … 🤔

          1. The NRA needs to prove that they love life over guns by agreeing to sensible restrictions and policies. Otherwise what you say means nothing. And frankly NO ONE believes that by evidence of their own senses. Assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated – I love the arguments against reinstating it by self-serving fools.

            1. “The NRA needs to prove that they love life over guns by agreeing to sensible restrictions and policies.”

              The NRA agrees with almost all the over 200,000 gun laws in the U.S.

              “Assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated – I love the arguments against reinstating it by self-serving fools.”

              I don’t agree with the Clinton era denigrating term “assault weapons.”

              I do agree some guns have high capacity magazines and look scary to liberals even though they are still semi automatics like most hunting rifles.

              I support raising the age to purchase these weapons to 21 years old for U.S. citizens.

              Teenagers can go to war at 18 years old and under that scenario would not be able to purchase these firearms.

              Show an honorable discharge paperwork, problem solved …

          2. NRA members love guns. Period. I mean, it’s not the National Life Association, now, is it? 🙂 If there IS a life over guns equation, it’s definitely not ALL life. Because I doubt if an unarmed guy broke into your house that you’d have ANY problem loving your gun over his life LOL!

            1. You’re actually correct. I would not LOL if an intruder broke into my home with intent of bodily harm, or worse, attempting to my life. So yeah, I’m that scenario happiness is a warm gun …

  4. Seems to me that the liberals not wanting to lock up crazies, trying to act like everyone is the same, even those with mental illness, is a huge part of the problem. I agree that we still need the “looney bins.” You simply cannot and should not coddle nuts. I am so sorry for what happened in Florida, Colorado, etc., it also seems to me that there were plenty of early signs, especially in the last case, and the law missed it!! From FBI on down to local, and especially the school personnel. I get a bit mad about that!!

    1. Seems to me the conservatives wanting to limit the freedom and gun access of “crazy people” haven’t read the Constitution. All it takes is for the government to say, “You’re crazy!” and your gun owning rights are GONE. Don’t fall for the liberal trick, they would love nothing more than to make this about “crazy people and guns”. If they can get non gun owning independents on their side, they will be able to whittle away gun rights a little at a time. You get in a fight with your significant other? Oh, well now you’re “crazy” and can’t own a gun. Upset because HR allows you to be let go wrongfully? Uh oh, you’re “crazy” and can’t own guns. Your kid gets in a fight with another kid? Oops, can’t have guns in the same house with that kid because they’re “crazy”.

      There’s no way to start limiting rights without stopping, everyone will start coming up with reasons why this group or that group shouldn’t have access to some kind of gun.

  5. Liberals will demand gun control every time a crazy person shoots up a school, but never call for border control after innocent Americans are raped & murdered by illegal aliens — which happens EVERY DAY.

    They truly take the cake as the world’s biggest hypocrites.

    Join the NRA, not because they support guns, but because they support the Constitution.

    Without the 2A, we wouldn’t have a Constitution. And without that, we would not be living in one of the greatest countries on earth. We would just be another shithole country ruined by socialism.

    Signed,

    Lifetime NRA member

      1. more russians than you can shake a stick at.

        want an assault style riffle join the military.

        the age to buy a gun, at least 21. you can’t buy an alcoholic drink till 21.

        assault style if for some reason, you just have to have one, must be kept at an armory and you can check it out and return it. want to use it at an approved shooting range fine, it will be shipped to the ranges armory waiting on you. but then it is returned and shipped back to it’s armory.

        well regulated is the only way anybody should have a gun.
        those guns are designed to look cool an attack a buyer, but their use is to kill otherwise you can use bb riffles for marksmanship shooting

      2. The Constitution says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Today’s “Well regulated Militia” would be the Army and Air National Guard and you might stretch it to reserve Law Enforcement Officers- not private individuals with weapons of war.

        1. DavGreg you are right.

          Too many chicken hawks, like cadet bone spurs.
          trump says he would have run in without a gun, what a liar.cadet bone spurs was given the opportunity to defend the nation and that chicken —- would not, and they would have given him a gun in the military. what a consistent liar trump is. such a tough guy he is, why did he have a bodyguard.

          he has to be impeached, convicted in the senate and removed from office. then he must face justice for money laundering to name but one offense.

            1. you get a grip.4 people have plead guilty. have enough sense to know that their are other people that have what they and you term as conservative values, beating wife or girlfriend , being a closet gay person, cheating on your wife, consistent lying, hating minorities, having special privileges for the right people, placing incompetent people in a job…

              just to let you know there are some conservative that won’t go for any of that, even for ronald regan. interesting how these guys once democrats seem to go so far to the right in order to prove they belong in their new party

            2. It’s not mythical, it happened, and the sooner people realize that NOTHING that Mueller comes up with will EVER make Ryan or McConnell take action, the better. Or, are you another “I’m only for Trump until I find out he worked with the Russians” RINO?

            3. From all I have read “collision” is not illegal in and of itself unless laws were broken.

              Remember Obama was caught telling Putin to wait until after the election. Wait for what? That is clearly “collusion” and last time I checked NOT prosecuted …

      3. AustinX,

        I’m not going to step in between the true believers here arguing their quasi-religious views for or against gun control. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion (although he is not entitled to be free of the consequences of expressing an opinion that another private person finds objectionable). There aren’t many facts to verify the opinions, since Congress has made it impossible in the last 30 years for anyone to study gun violence while working in an institution that gets government funding.

        However, the situation is different when it comes to the connections between immigration and crime. I feel obliged to point out that the Cato Institute—about as far from a leftist organization as one might imagine—has just issued a report on crime statistics in Texas. Their conclusions:

        “The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 25 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 11.5 percent and 79 percent below that of native-born Americans for the crimes of sexual assault and larceny, respectively. Illegal immigrants were more likely to be convicted of gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy than natives, but those crimes constituted only 0.18 percent of all convictions that year in Texas. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 56 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 85 percent below that of native-born Americans.”

        https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant

        In other words, native-born Texans could eliminate all but about 15% of the current crime rate if all of us left the state. There may be good reasons for limiting immigration, but public safety isn’t one of them.

          1. That is completely consistent with the Cato Institute report. Since ICE prioritizes arresting illegals with criminal convictions, it is hardly surprising that many of the people they arrest have convictions. The officers spend roughly half their time arresting people who have no criminal record, because such folk are the great majority of the immigrant community.

    1. You can support the NRA, disagree with it and boycott it as well and in fact be a better patriot for it than those who blindly won’t make common sense adjustments.

      Where does it end – private nuke ownership? Particle beam weapon ownership? Photon torpedo and phaser ownership? I see too many boys into their lethal toys instead of real men.

      The only reason I see to own a weapon is a potential civilization collapse coming from natural disasters such as the San Andreas Fault, Cascadia Subduction Zone and the world destroying Yellowstone Caldera exploding. And other unforeseen disasters looming. Natural disasters are scarier since they have the potential to change the world order overnight.

    2. Well it was nice knowing you. I guess we won’t be seeing you on Apple forums in the future.

      Please let me know what Apple gear you’ll be selling when you start your boycott.

      Hypocrite is a strong word. I hope you can live up to the standard you throw at everyone else.

    3. Recent activities have finally pushed me to join the NRA for the first time as of yesterday. I’m looking for an AR now, because, you know, ‘Merica! – Seriously, I was fine with my old SKS and Mosin Nagant bolt action but the uninformed attack on the NRA & 2A have made me want to further exercise my rights. I stopped going to the theater her in CO since Cinemark has a no weapons sign on their door invalidating my CCP. Oh wait, this is MDN – I love my iStuff too. Maybe a kevlar cover for my MacBook?

        1. Thanks! Tomorrow is the day my girlfriend joins the NRA for the first time as well. She, having done some law enforcement and mental health work in years past, is very disappointed in the lack of understanding of both firearms and the constitution.

  6. I fail to see the problem among NRA devotees about initiating a little common sense regarding security background checks, ownership age and the type of weapon made illegal. Sensible suggestions.

    The AR-15 has only one purpose – to kill masses of people quickly and easily especially with large magazines and modifications. It’s one of the easiest guns to use and master. The preferred weapon of mass assassins.

    Also the 2nd amendment refers to an “armed militia” not redneck shotgun truck drivin’ Joe “Bubba” Bumfuq or the next disgruntled student seeking to wipe out his school classmates. Those seeking to block simple precautions in the mistaken belief any modifications will result in the elimination of gun ownership deserve the day when such a thing might happen thanks to their foolish intransigence. It doesn’t take many in the millions of people who own guns to create total havoc.

    “On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.””

    1. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The AR-15 is a modern rifle. Just like you’re using a modern computer to write your post and not a quill and ink well. Technology evolves.

      Question: Do you know the number of NRA members that have committed mass shootings?

      Answer: Zero

    2. Peter, the “armed militia” IS Joe Bubba, for your information. And we DO know what Madison meant by the 2nd Amendment. There are many historical documents, including the Federalist papers that cover not only the Constitution, but the discussion of what was not included and needed to be added later as amendments to the Constitution. The people of the time had just fought a war with a tyrannical king, and they feared any new government could pose a threat to their newfound liberty. The armed militia were the people of the states. It referred to their right to protect themselves and their families. You are clueless. You omissions are frivolous. They didn’t NEED to explain self-defense or hunting “rights”, those were a given for the day. The AR-15 has more uses than killing people, but you wouldn’t know that, since you probably don’t own one.

      1. Re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller v District of Columbia in 2008:
        “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.”

        1. That’s a recent reinterpretation of an original Constitutional amendment that can easily go either way. And therein lies the problem. What if that was not Madison’s intent at all? Just because it appeals to your itchy trigger finger.

          I am not anti-gun mind you, I am anti-stupidity not having some basic protections in place for the deranged getting these weapons of mass shooting. Are you really dead set against such minimal changes? I hope your family isn’t shot up in a similar way, you might then feel quite differently then.

    3. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
      – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

      1. So as long as you’re just using muskets from that era I agree. Anything else is foolish not taking into account where things would be hundreds of years into the future. Even now there is no way a civilian force could reckon with U.S. Government weapons.

          1. Lame analogy not remotely relevant. You are not entitled to 21st, 22nd or 23rd century progressively advanced technology weapons capable of wiping out dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people based on a document written in the 18th century & based on you and others fanciful & wishful, not to mention misguided, interpretation. The fact you don’t know the difference speaks volumes.

            A different type of writing pen or communication device is not remotely the same as a lethal weapon. Though some would say the pen is mightier than the sword.

            1. One might as easily say that you are not entitled to 20th or 21st century communications technology for communicating your ideas which might be disagreeable to some, because freedom of speech was envisioned only as face-to-face, and freedom of the press was envisioned as hand-run, single-page at a time presses; they certainly never envisioned electrically-powered presses, or any electronic communications media. And they certainly didn’t envision the Internet.

              So tell me again why ANY more effective technology having to do with exercising rights protected by the Bill of Right should not be highly regulated or banned?

            2. Others have already presented this lame analogy which is not remotely relevant to the issue. A desperation argument attempting to connect non-existent dots. This is precisely the kind of specious logic employed by idiots.

              Unfortunately the Constitutional framers couldn’t see how a few redneck morons would use the 2nd amendment as a way to bolster their weak manhood.

              Personally I’m looking forward to getting a nuke-fueled Proton Pack that will blow all you irresponsible & radical gun nuts to kingdom come in the blink of an eye.

            3. “Unfortunately the Constitutional framers couldn’t see how a few redneck morons would use the 2nd amendment as a way to bolster their weak manhood.

              Personally I’m looking forward to getting a nuke-fueled Proton Pack that will blow all you irresponsible & radical gun nuts to kingdom come in the blink of an eye.”

              Seriously?

              Your anti-Second Amendment and gun owners rights is dully notes.

              Happiness, is a warm gun used responsibly.

              Unfortunately, NOT in your vocabulary…

            4. Typical for guys like you – no sense of humor – which is always a dangerous sign of not playing with a full deck. Obsession with guns only shows more of your folly. Responsible gun owners take ownership seriously, as they should. It’s not a game for kids, kid.

            5. So glad we have you to decide what century of technology we’re entitled to.

              Don’t worry buddy I don’t own any “assault” rifles…just defensive ones. Feel better? 😏

            6. So glad you love to twist the words of the Constitution to your biased liking and completely misunderstand context or appropriate responsibility.

              Don’t own assault rifles? So what are you complaining about? This isn’t about taking away your right to own guns. This is about keeping military grade assault weapons whose only purpose is to create mass casualties ripping bodies apart and instant incapacitation out of the hands of civilians. Forgive me while I laugh at your complete lack of empathy and mental acuity.

        1. “US Government Weapons,” ie the military. The military is sworn to uphold the constitution and would (should) remove a rogue government at the behest of the citizens, not turn on them.

    1. And you’re the acknowledged buffoon, I mean “expert?” There is no reason for an AR-15 to exist in civilian hands that a whole bunch of other rifles won’t legitimately replace for things like hunting. Military style weapons don’t have a place in a civilian home. End of story.

      1. You don’t get to be the judge of what one decides to use for their own household. And you wonder why the NRA won’t budge an inch on their stance. Well, neither will the rest of us.

        1. Hmm, and there are limits to what kind of weapons you can own (wonder why that is?) though there should be more.

          No budging just shows the severe lack of intelligence at work. Everyone of you little boy guys think you’re Ralphie with his Red Ryder Double Barrel BB Shot Gun ready to ride in and save the day against the bad guys, when the reality is you’re all a bunch of clumsy oafs.

            1. So let’s keep moving up the scale of militarized weapons for home consumption and suppose I break into your home with hand grenades and bazooka’s? No problem? Well just as long as you can have them too eh? Just how far do you go? Every weapon ever designed has kept in mind the next better one that will result in more casualties.

              What will finally satiate those who feel the need to spew hot lead?

            2. “Is a Remington repeater rifle more advanced than a musket?”

              Not anymore, botty. Remington filed for Chapter 11. It seems that the fearmongering during the Obama years led them to make too many fashion-first guns to sell into a market that didn’t materialize. Now gun stores have so much inventory they don’t know what do with them all.

              Sensible people know that there are so many guns out there that no gun control measure of any kind will have instant impact. It would take many generations to drive cultural change and training and processes in place so that crazy people don’t have the opportunity to buy 100 times the firepower that responsible sportsmen have in their safes in their own homes.

              The BS that there should be armed teachers is ludicrous when a crazy person can access a rifle with bump stock that shoots over 60 rounds per minute. Nobody can protect kids when they are that outgunned.

              I don’t support the NRA because the NRA only cares about maximizing gun sales — they don’t do nearly enough to improve training and sporting opportunities for kids and responsible gun owners. Their budget has been steadily pushed into lobbying instead of back into communities where it used to go. Maybe I would have more respect for the NRA if it offered proposals that made sense — like comprehensive background checks, destruction of guns used to commit crimes, banning of bump stocks, a high national standard of training instead of a patchwork of state regulations to get a concealed carry permit, and for goodness sake a psychiatric test which would keep guns out of the hands of crazy people!

              When the NRA shows they care about public safety and realizes that the answer to armed terror isn’t an escalation in armament, then they might regain respect as an organization. As it is they are a corporate lobby claiming to support the 2nd amendment while doing everything possible to undermine the other 9 bill of rights amendments for their political opponents.

            1. See the Fox News Youtube video I just posted at the beginning of this thread. An AR-15 does not make a particularly good weapon for home protection. Are you saying a pump action rifle would not command someone’s attention? Why aren’t police then routinely using AR-15’s if this is such a good idea? (Wow what a disaster that would be.)

              AR-15 bullets also rip and tear through human bodies going in one spot, tumbling, and coming out another. That’s a military style wound. You have not made a good point at all.

            2. I was taught that a Benelli makes a better home defense tool than something you actually have to aim. Neither should be allowed in the hands of unsupervised teens and never for someone taking antidepressants or diagnosed with any psych disorder. Why are these common sense measures the least bit controversial ?

Leave a Reply to BOB Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.