No they do not consist of quoting either him or his record
U mean I did NOT
see what I saw during the campaign ?
they distort both because they are against anyone who believes
in safety measures when it comes to the use of personal weapons.
I have known NRA to strongly FAVOR
Indeed, it even runs numerous safety programs, itself
and has instructors teaching them.
I will admit that NRA has opposed some programs
which woud have been much safer
for violent criminals
like the D.C. law requiring defensive guns to be stored
unloaded and disassembled, or with trigger locks, so that in an emergency,
the good guy coud not get ready in time to defend from the bad guy.
When you guys hear anything remotely like more gun laws you
automatically think of it like a slippery slope to banning guns
and violating the second amendment
No; this is false,
in that some gun laws are GOOD
for additional freedom
of gun possession and practice with them, whereas others
are proposed by gun-haters who wish to subvert and curtail
our right to self-defense. There are people who openly oppose
the right of self-defense from the violence of criminals
and who wish to criminalize self-defense from criminals,
as well as thay can criminalize it. I understand that thay have been
quite successful in doing so in some European countries.
that is why the NRA has it out for Obama
The NRA has no reason to oppose obama,
except for his opposition to freedom of gun possession
the same as of freedom of hammer possession or ax possession.
People like me, who support some part of NRA ideology,
desire everyone to be SAFE
; that does not
rendering emergency equipment inaccessible in an emergency.
It also does NOT
include accepting or tolerating
of authority by government, in this area,
nor in any other area.
I very strongly support gun manufacturers selling guns.
The same as the American public needs a continual supply of cars,
it needs a continual supply of guns, but the NRA does not
Your side reminds me of the extreme left side of the abortion issue.
(I don't believe in abortion but don't use it as a litmus test for candidates)
of the abortion issue
is the same as MY side of the freedom of gun possession issue, to wit:
that it is none of any government 's damned business.
It is a purely private matter that a pregnant woman
can attend to with her medical health care providers.
I dissent from your characterization of this being:
" the extreme left side
. . . " of the abortion issue.
I am not aware of the Founders ever having considered
the issue of a woman 's freedom of abortion; I have not studied
this aspect of history, nor do I know whether anything was ever
recorded on this point. I suspect that thay woud hold that
government has no
jurisdiction to interfere in the internal
workings of the body of any human being.
That also applies to ingestion of drugs by any citizen:
a basic right to ingest drugs or to ingest poison, if so he chooses.