Collarchat.com

Join Our Community		 Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 5:18:15 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		Then they will take the “gubmint” do they really taste of mints? I have a strange urge for mintola’s and those other ones in the red packet – name them

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 5:22:37 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

Bamad is one of the most honest people on here. And you are what fukwit?


correct and accurate.....and he knows it.

No, you believe you are but your judgement is clouded by your racist fantasies.


AGAIN bama..... FACTS bamad....... SHOW FACTS not hyperbole, insults or lame ass comparison's to other groups.

u get off ur ass and prove what I said is wrong. I fucking dare u.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5079611 there's My post - so u, as the NRA likes to say.... "stand and fight" or STFU.









Again you made the claim, prove it.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to itsSIRtou)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 5:41:00 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		Prove to me you are all responsible.

I wish that. Begin.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 63
[Awaiting Approval]
WickedsDesire


Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline 		[Awaiting Approval]
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 5:51:46 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

Prove to me you are all responsible.

I wish that. Begin.


All is a big group.
In any group someone is going to be irresponsible

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 6:08:51 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
While I have seen on these boards the arguments that the term militia as addressed in the 2nd amendment no longer applies because the national guard has taken the place of the militia and therefore the second amendment needs to be repealed,


Hitting the good stuff tonight, eh? How many people actually said "the second amendment needs to be repealed"? Yeah, I thought so.

quote:

thought it would be interesting for everyone to see exactly what the framers of the constitution were thinking.


To be fair, if they had any notion of 100 round magazines in full-auto weapons being available for personal use, I'm sure that would have been included. Carrying on . . .

quote:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


Etc.

But this:“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

If any modern person doesn't think that Richard Henry Lee, with that way of thinking, wouldn't readily exchange turkey shooters for computers in directly translated meaning to these times, he isn't getting what Henry Lee was after. Just ask the Chinese, if there be clarification needed on that point.

quote:

There is the fact that, should the US government oppress the American people there is a good chance that the people will have the support of a large number of US military personnel.


As a matter of fact, the financiers tried their damndest to get the government overthrown in the '30s, too bad your grandaddy didn't have enough guns to help them out with that. The fact of the matter, as Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler explained in his book, he nor any honest military man wanted anything to do with what you or your grandaddy were/are about.

Maybe you and your ancestry are naturally inclined to position of 'face down, ass up' to corporate interests, fine, but STFU about others not being so inclined as not being "patriots."

So while at it; where were you and your 40 guns (if you are a patriot at all) when houses being stolen from retirees and jobs destroyed?

That's what I thought; face down/ass up as always. Unless it was the government doing it. Yeah we get it.

So anyway, your point is that he who does not posses 20-40 full autos, or modifications to same effect, to purpose of giving answer to oppressive government, as calculated by those who own 20-40 full-auto rifles, is not a patriot. Glad we've got that one sorted out.

So now after Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, innumerable other such occasions, we now come upon the new concept of "proactive collateral damage" as justification for those who sometime in the future will protect us from government oppression.

Fantastic.

Say what you will about Stephen Paddock, but at least he was there for us, or would have been, if the government ever became too oppressive.





< Message edited by Edwird -- 10/6/2017 6:29:39 PM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 6:11:12 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		One person?
Two persons?
Three persons?

Tell me when I should stop?
What about 13,000 or 40,000?
What is your number?

My number is 100 and you will find that more than fair. Unless. Unless you are callously clumsily calling me otherwise calamity?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 6:38:00 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

One person?
Two persons?
Three persons?

Tell me when I should stop?
What about 13,000 or 40,000?
What is your number?

My number is 100 and you will find that more than fair. Unless. Unless you are callously clumsily calling me otherwise calamity?


What group do you want me to prove all, or nearly all of are responsible?
How can I possibly prove that there aren't any number from the 100,000,000
gun owners are or are not irresponsible if that is what you are asking me to do.
100 out of 100,000,000 is 1 out of each million people, and you think that is reasonable?


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 6:52:01 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline 		I just raise kill-trained Rotweilers and let them free in the neighborhood sometimes. I just toss a passing by skate-boarding kid a modified Kalashnikov sometimes.

How does anyone expect me to keep up with all this?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:00:13 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery



3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy. For starters (let alone firepower and training), military brass is far smarter than to have a Rambo-esque shoot 'em up with a bunch of weekend cowboys. They'd take a far more strategic approach, and it would be largely over before people rang the bells and had a chance to start shooting.

Come on. You aren't stupid. If you want to discuss this, let's have an honest, real discussion.



As I stated, should the US government become such that the citizens will not stand for it, do you honestly think that government would have the backing of 100% of the US military?

Second point, the Afghan rebels beat the Soviet Mechanized army to the point that after 10 years, the Soviets gave up on Afghanistan and got the hell out. While the US did supply shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles, and provide some training, the majority of the rebel forces were poorly armed, not trained and made it too costly for the Soviet military to stay in place.

Third point, while armed citizens may not stand as a match against the US military, I have to point out that the US military is still stuck in the idea and philosophy of a symmetrical battle zone, i.e, the enemy has set lines etc, with the exceptions being the units created and trained in counter guerilla tactics.

And the final point, which goes back to the 'do you honestly think that if the US citizens rebelled against an oppressive Federal government in force, the entire military would follow that government?" Thanks to President Bush sr, and the elected presidents that followed, many reserve and even national guard units have been equipped with equipment that is nearly equivalent to the regular forces.

The last part of this point is extremely simple, since the court-martials of those involved in Mai Lai, during the Vietnam conflict, one of the primary focus with training is that personnel are trained that they are only required to follow legitimate legal orders of superior officers. At the point where those orders are to occupy US cities and towns with due to resistance to a tyrannical government, a good percentage would refuse such orders.

So, while the armed civilians would not alone be enough to stand against the military, I do believe that enough of the military would balk at firing on American citizens and desert with their equipment to make a significant difference in the eventual outcome.

I can remember some good times hanging with Vietnam Vets at the local gun store. I asked one once if he was interested in owning an automatic rifle. He said, "No, if it ever comes to the point that I need one, I'll just shoot a National .Guardsmen and take his." I'll wager a dime to a donut that there are a lot more former combat veterans out of the service than in the service and I, pretty much, never met one that would have a problem doing something similar if it became necessary. I jut don't think WM knows what she's talking about but firmly believes she's correct and has a valid argument. Then, on top of that we have your point. I think few army PFC's would turn a weapon on civilians. Some would I'm sure. I think I saw a poll of service members on the subject once and I was surprised at the number that would. If I recall correctly it was something like 60%. But, that leaves out plus or minus 40% who wouldn't or would actually change sides. And since our Army policy is that any fieghting force that loses 30% or more of the force is effectively incapable of functioning in the field, the Army would have to admit it couldn't function. But, WM hasn't googled stuff like this so her ignorance is bliss and makes for strongly held beliefs. Poor thinking and understanding, but strong beliefs.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:02:42 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

Then they will take the “gubmint” do they really taste of mints? I have a strange urge for mintola’s and those other ones in the red packet – name them

That's real strange because there is a new study out, seriously, that has determined an early warning sign of dementia is losing the ability to smell mint. I'm serious. I'll see if I can find the article.


Edited to say, "Ah, here it is. See I told you I was serious."

http://www.newsweek.com/symptoms-dementia-study-finds-inability-smell-peppermint-linked-disease-673883

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:04:23 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

No complaints with him myself. Ask bamad a question he answers with depth and he knows fine well I hate guns


I personally don't hate all guns,..... I like hunting and target shooting Myself. I'm just tired of the indiscriminate sales of "people killer weapons",

the lack of responsibility of too many gun owners whos stolen weapons wind up in poor neighborhoods as currency for drugs.

bama just hates the fact that his race, his political views, etc...... are the problem... and that fact being pointed out.

and he has nothing to counterpoint with other than to lamely try to lump other groups in with it.




People killer weapons, I assume you are referring to the so called assault rifles?

Let you in on a secret, any fire arm can be a people killer.

However, for the record, I own two bolt actions, six semi automatics, 3 shotguns, six pistols, and two NFA registered weapons, along with a number of replica black powder cap and ball and black powder cartridge weapons.

The bolt action rifles I use strictly for deer, but then I was raised never to waste a shot, so never saw the need to carry a semi automatic to hunt deer.

However, I also earn a supplemental income eradicating feral hogs, and in that, the semi automatic is invaluable. As I have said before, I have seen a full grown wild hog hit by a semi and the semi needed a tow truck and the fucking hog wandered off on its own power, not saying it lived happily ever after, but it wasn't laying in the road.

Big boars and sows are not fat like many folks believe, and certainly not flabby like some farm raised pig. The are solid meat and bone, and dense as hell. I have seen adult pigs shake off single 308 and 44 magnum hits and still have plenty of fight, but hit them in repeatedly and you will drop them. Wild hogs are a serious problem in many parts of the country, and a bolt action wont cut it when you are dealing with a pack of the bastards.

Hell, if the state of Texas would allow it, I would use the NFA weapons on the damn things, belt or magazine fed.

But there in is the problem. Those people who do not support an out right ban do support banning certain types of rifles that have a very practical use in the civilian population. The only local that hunts hogs around here with a bolt action uses a freaking elephant gun, and he swears he has had a few that took multiple shots to bring down.

The state record for a boar caught alive in a hog trap is 800 pounds and he damn near tore the trap apart. The biggest killed in Texas hit 890. There was one in Georgia they claim topped the scales at 1200 pounds.

Now, you want to face one with a bolt action 308? Be my guess, since if you dont kill a big boar, you are going to piss it off, and unless you are in a tree stand, you might be in for a bad night.

On another subject, some say gun owners dismiss the numbers, we dont. Hell we are even pro sensible, enforceable gun regulations. What we are against is for non shooters to decide what the hell a sensible gun regulation is or what we can and cannot own.

No, not every gun owner wants a belt fed machine gun, and not every gun owner needs what people refer to as an assault rifle.

Hell, gun owners really dont have an issue with the back ground checks. The NRA supported the Brady Bill and has announced it will support a ban on bump stocks.

As for the statement the NRA is racist, I have to remind people that Charlton Heston, a life time member and life time gun owner marched with Martin Luther King jr. The NRA does not publish the ethnic demographics of its membership simply because they do not feel it is important. The NRA fought bans in cities with large ethnic populations not out of racism, but because those ethnic store owners have the right to own firearms to protect their businesses, a point made in the riots in LA after the King verdict.

There is ample footage of Korean, African American, Hispanic Americans defending their businesses with guns, and the NRA supported their rights to do so.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to itsSIRtou)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:05:39 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

One person?
Two persons?
Three persons?

Tell me when I should stop?
What about 13,000 or 40,000?
What is your number?

My number is 100 and you will find that more than fair. Unless. Unless you are callously clumsily calling me otherwise calamity?


This was written just for you...well and a few other snowflakes here:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

See item 1 especially.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:05:43 PM   
BlackSinMaster


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/15/2012
Status: offline 		You know fine well I loathe guns…you always help me out with anything I ask about guns and you do so honestly, not brazenly. I respect that *nods…mail that one women, honesty is rare.

I do not exist here to give you a lesson in math’s but your second amendment is a piece of obscure shit.

At some point the responsible become irresponsible.

Not the right thread to say this but why?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:08:04 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery



3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy. For starters (let alone firepower and training), military brass is far smarter than to have a Rambo-esque shoot 'em up with a bunch of weekend cowboys. They'd take a far more strategic approach, and it would be largely over before people rang the bells and had a chance to start shooting.

Come on. You aren't stupid. If you want to discuss this, let's have an honest, real discussion.



As I stated, should the US government become such that the citizens will not stand for it, do you honestly think that government would have the backing of 100% of the US military?

Second point, the Afghan rebels beat the Soviet Mechanized army to the point that after 10 years, the Soviets gave up on Afghanistan and got the hell out. While the US did supply shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles, and provide some training, the majority of the rebel forces were poorly armed, not trained and made it too costly for the Soviet military to stay in place.

Third point, while armed citizens may not stand as a match against the US military, I have to point out that the US military is still stuck in the idea and philosophy of a symmetrical battle zone, i.e, the enemy has set lines etc, with the exceptions being the units created and trained in counter guerilla tactics.

And the final point, which goes back to the 'do you honestly think that if the US citizens rebelled against an oppressive Federal government in force, the entire military would follow that government?" Thanks to President Bush sr, and the elected presidents that followed, many reserve and even national guard units have been equipped with equipment that is nearly equivalent to the regular forces.

The last part of this point is extremely simple, since the court-martials of those involved in Mai Lai, during the Vietnam conflict, one of the primary focus with training is that personnel are trained that they are only required to follow legitimate legal orders of superior officers. At the point where those orders are to occupy US cities and towns with due to resistance to a tyrannical government, a good percentage would refuse such orders.

So, while the armed civilians would not alone be enough to stand against the military, I do believe that enough of the military would balk at firing on American citizens and desert with their equipment to make a significant difference in the eventual outcome.

I can remember some good times hanging with Vietnam Vets at the local gun store. I asked one once if he was interested in owning an automatic rifle. He said, "No, if it ever comes to the point that I need one, I'll just shoot a National .Guardsmen and take his." I'll wager a dime to a donut that there are a lot more former combat veterans out of the service than in the service and I, pretty much, never met one that would have a problem doing something similar if it became necessary. I jut don't think WM knows what she's talking about but firmly believes she's correct and has a valid argument. Then, on top of that we have your point. I think few army PFC's would turn a weapon on civilians. Some would I'm sure. I think I saw a poll of service members on the subject once and I was surprised at the number that would. If I recall correctly it was something like 60%. But, that leaves out plus or minus 40% who wouldn't or would actually change sides. And since our Army policy is that any fieghting force that loses 30% or more of the force is effectively incapable of functioning in the field, the Army would have to admit it couldn't function. But, WM hasn't googled stuff like this so her ignorance is bliss and makes for strongly held beliefs. Poor thinking and understanding, but strong beliefs.

And all of this ignores the fact that a huge number would lie and say they would follow orders
so they wouldn't be locked up when the time came.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:10:30 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

You know fine well I loathe guns…you always help me out with anything I ask about guns and you do so honestly, not brazenly. I respect that *nods…mail that one women, honesty is rare.

I do not exist here to give you a lesson in math’s but your second amendment is a piece of obscure shit.

At some point the responsible become irresponsible.

Not the right thread to say this but why?



My condolences on your phobia of inanimate objects.
<couldn't resist the snark for humor>

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:12:26 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
lastly: (or maybe not)
quote:

"How many national rifle association (NRA) members are black?"
"The NRA doesn't keep records of race, so this information is not obtainable..."

https://www.quora.com/How-many-national-rifle-association-NRA-members-are-black


Do you mean to tell me they don't care about the racial makeup of their membership; that they might treat each member the same, regardless of skin color?!?

That's got to be racist on some level.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:18:51 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I believe this passage might help explain things....
    quote:

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    Bold Mine

'parently, evils have yet to cross that line between sufferable and insufferable for enough people.

Right. We used modified turkey shooters to throw off the Brits, so now more modification of modern already 1,000-X more proficient arms as then is sufficient to worm our way around pertinent legislation and keep neighbors of nutjobs out of the discussion entirely is accomplished thereby.
Fantastic.


Context is important, Edwird. What was I responding to?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:19:37 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

You know fine well I loathe guns…you always help me out with anything I ask about guns and you do so honestly, not brazenly. I respect that *nods…mail that one women, honesty is rare.

I do not exist here to give you a lesson in math’s but your second amendment is a piece of obscure shit.

At some point the responsible become irresponsible.

Not the right thread to say this but why?


I do not assume you are trying to give me shit.
But you are asking for information that is unavailable.
You are however wrong.
Firearms in the right hands stop 4 times as many crimes as are committed
with them. What is wrong with that?
Gun owners want laws that nail misusers, but every law we see makes things tougher
for legitimate gun owners and seem to be based on the trickle down theory of law enforcement.
Disarming honest people consistently brings up crime rates.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BlackSinMaster)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/6/2017 7:23:54 PM   
itsSIRtou


Posts: 836
Joined: 3/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

Bamad is one of the most honest people on here. And you are what fukwit?


correct and accurate.....and he knows it.

No, you believe you are but your judgement is clouded by your racist fantasies.


AGAIN bama..... FACTS bamad....... SHOW FACTS not hyperbole, insults or lame ass comparison's to other groups.

u get off ur ass and prove what I said is wrong. I fucking dare u.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5079611 there's My post - so u, as the NRA likes to say.... "stand and fight" or STFU.


Since no racial figures are kept on NRA members I can't give you the %.
I have pointed out that not one of the laws supported by the NRA has anything to do with race.
You want me to make up numbers since they do not exist.
That is what you have to do to show how few black members they have.
Can you do that? you made the claim so prove it.


LOL.... So in other words, u cant dispute a word I said..... Thank u very much...its about darn time....

And since at no point did I say anything that gun laws specifically said anything to do with race also is a dummy round for u. ....nice try...

The last report about the NRA's "board of directors" is 2015.... since deleted which is why u cant find anything on the nra's website....

I found this in 2016 and used it in a book report...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/nra-board-directors-nugent-selleck-north/

In part:

Overall, the NRA board members are 93 percent white and 86 percent men. Most are hunters, shooting competitively or for sport. About a third are current or former lawmakers or government officials. About one-tenth are entertainers or athletes; nine percent own, work for, or promote gun companies. Here’s a breakdown of the current board, based on bios posted by the NRA (since deleted) and other sources:


take note of some of the Bios on some of the board Members...LOL!!

So that should settle that point..... move along, bamad... ur part of the problem.....accept it.







_____________________________

I will allways be a knight, instead of a prince.

What would the internet be like if we couldn't say trump is a moron?

The Republican party complains government doesnt work for people, and then makes darn sure it cannot.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141