Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

The NRA is a strong supporter of those GOP candidates. Like Romney's pick for V.P.--Paul Ryan.

Quote:

Paul Ryan on Gun Control
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

I have no use for either the GOP or the NRA--I've never supported either.

Personal freedom seems to annoy u.

oralloy wrote:

The reason they made the militia as strong as possible was because they did not want a standing army.

I think the most likely reason is the cost of a standing army.
Most countries have one if they can afford it.
The new nation could not.

No. The reason was fear of tyranny.
A standing army would enforce the orders of a tyrannical government,
but the militia was composed of the general populace,
and people will not impose tyranny upon themselves.

It's actually not too different from the reasoning behind
the original version in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

She was anorexic, under psychological care.
Somewhat questionable about her feeding.

Trust you to find an exceptional case under treatment.
You could have used somebody who sleeps on a bed of nails
to prove soft beds are not instinctive although I will admit it being
an unsuitable case for telling us you once dated a hottie. Haven't we all?
Aren't all our dates shockingly beautiful?

You have even been manipulated on beauty.

Trophy dolls engineered by the advertising industry.

Load of bollocks. Pickpocketing.

It is strange that gun nuts persistently quote historical precedent, when all circumstances nowadays are entirely different from Stuart England or Revolutionary America.

I am informed the USA has now got a standing army, quite a large one.

Shouldn't it now turn its attention to the well-armed local
"militia" and the harm they cause the nation?

Those who want to play at being Davy Crockett could still keep a musket at home.

In a nation armed with more than a quarter of a billion privately owned firearms, the NRA is correct to assert that determined outlaws will often find a way to get their hands on guns. The problem is that the NRA is the foremost enabler of many of those outlaws.

We can’t link the NRA directly to the hideous acts of alleged Aurora gunman James Holmes, 24, or to any one of the nation’s 9,000 to 10,000 annual gun murders and 338,000 rapes, robberies and other non-fatal assaults, or to the actions of the “deranged madmen” whom the NRA loves to demonize. What we can say with absolute certainty is that where there are loopholes in gun laws, laws that make it more difficult to get thugs off the streets and laws that endanger the lives of police and ordinary citizens alike, you will invariably find the fingerprints of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO and public face, may call his group “one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the country,” but under his leadership the NRA – with a 2010 budget of more than $240 million — has become the nation’s de facto lobby for street criminals, criminal gun dealers and an industry that reaps a sizable percentage of its income from criminal gun use. The NRA, says Pittsburgh police detective Joseph Bielevicz, “takes every chance it gets to stymie even reasonable efforts to combat gun violence.”

No one honestly doubts that the NRA is the reason there is no serious debate about guns in Congress. So today we live under a series of laws written or advanced by the NRA. Today a state can impose a death sentence or life in prison on someone who commits murder with a firearm. But the “What, me worry?” gun dealer, who supplies multiple murderers with guns he claims were “stolen” from his inventory, guns he never recorded on his books, or guns he sold to straw buyers with a wink and a nod, can operate with virtual impunity, thanks to laws written by the NRA.

One of these, passed in 1986, drastically reduced penalties for dealers who violate record-keeping laws, making violations misdemeanors rather than felonies. Another established an absurdly high standard of proof to convict dealers who sell to criminals. In 2003, Congress, at the NRA’s urging, barred the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the much-maligned agency responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, from forcing dealers to conduct inventory inspections that would detect lost and stolen guns. Car dealers like to know when inventory goes missing. Gun dealers? Not so curious.

Most astonishingly, the same NRA-inspired law forces the FBI to destroy Brady background checks for gun purchases within 24 hours, which makes it harder for law enforcement to identify dealers who falsify their records and makes it impossible to cross-check purchases made by gun traffickers from multiple dealers. Although federal law requires a dealer who sells more than one handgun to a single individual in a five-day period to file a special report with the BATF, the agency is unable to cross-check purchases from multiple dealers, so gun traffickers can simply hop from one gun store to the next, buying a single handgun at each until they accumulate the arsenals they want. Put another way, the NRA and its backers in Congress created a law that forces the FBI to destroy evidence of crimes, evidence of illegal multiple gun purchases.

The FBI warned Congress that passage of this 24-hour law would allow 97 percent of criminal buyers to escape apprehension, and the Justice Department’s inspector general said the law’s principal beneficiaries would be criminal gun dealers. But this doesn’t bother the NRA. It even opposes common-sense local ordinances requiring that gun dealers and private citizens report lost or stolen firearms within 24 to 48 hours. Police support these laws because they want to move quickly when a gun is lost or stolen (a half-million are stolen each year), before someone gets shot. They’re also supported by 78 percent of NRA members, who apparently recognize their value for public safety. They’re just not supported by the NRA leadership, which says they don’t work.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/

The one that we used to save u from Hitler,
or the one that we used to rescue u from the Kaiser ?

Political & jurisprudential principles continue to apply,
like the principles of math.

Thay remain timeless.

It is strange that gun nuts persistently quote historical precedent,

when all circumstances nowadays are entirely different from Stuart England or Revolutionary America.

I am informed the USA has now got a standing army, quite a large one. Shouldn't it now turn its attention to the well-armed local "militia" and the harm they cause the nation?

Those who want to play at being Davy Crockett could still keep a musket at home.

Yes, that's the one. It could quite adequately supersede local "militia", unless you have other information?

Which avoids another point. Every modern state repeals out-dated laws, or rewrites them.