NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

cjhsa wrote:

Why don't you pack up your rusty old 38 and go ask the sheriff yourself?

Translation: "That's a hard question and I don't know the answer. So, instead of displaying my ignorance, I'll just toss off a feeble quip and hope nobody notices."

cjhsa wrote:

And we Americans don't like you!

I like McTag. And I'm an American. I have a passport and everything.

No, it was an honest suggestion.

..... or any other amendment says that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to buy anything they want, to protect themselves against criminals and tyrants, like those who wish to disarm and control them (as slave subjects). Does that remind you of anyone?

Set:

Where did you get your info on the creation of armor piercing bullets? You do know that even a .22cal will penetrate the door of a car and even the windshield.

Your right Kevlar didn't exist when they were trying to develop armor piercing bullets, but tanks and armored personal carriers did. I'm not sure they spurred the armor piercing bullet but any bullet will penetrate an average car window and door.

Setanta wrote:

CJ has expressed in a crude form, though, the "thin end of the wedge" argument which is central to NRA propaganda, heavily funded by firearms manufacturers. That is that any attempt to control firearms at all is just a cover for the attempt to ban them outright. It is used as an hysterical mantra to avoid the question on why anyone needs a hand gun, or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

Was this your full quote? If so you did mention Kevlar vests and armor piercing ammunition.

So you know the vest I used in Afghanistan wasn't able to stop a 7.62mm bullet. I needed (SAPI) plates (which I didn't wear because of comfort) to make it stop 7.62 rounds. I was busted several times for going on mission and not wearing my plates, but I couldn't help it. Trying to fix a helicopter with all that crap on was almost impossible and I took a chance. If I was going to die I don't think the plates would have helped because when it's my time to go, it's my time to go.

In the 1960s Dr. Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant) and Donald Ward (Dr. Kopsch's special investigator), began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets, such as windshield glass and automobile doors. Conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, often become deformed and ineffective after striking hard targets, especially when fired at handgun velocities.

cjhsa wrote:

..... or any other amendment says that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to buy anything they want, to protect themselves against criminals and tyrants, like those who wish to disarm and control them (as slave subjects). Does that remind you of anyone?

Look out! Here comes another criminal or tyrant!

By the way, this is very germane to the topic of the thread. None of those here who oppose restrictions on firearms have been willing to discuss the initial topic of the savage manner in which Zumbo was attacked because he strayed from the holy creed of the the mighty gun lobby. Since then, all that proponents of unrestricted firearms ownership have done is to attempt to quibble about definitions, and to divert the topic from a discussion of what, if any, necessity can be reasonably claimed for particular categories of firearms.

Let's pose that question a different way. Do you think that those who've been convicted of a felony should have the right to vote? I'm curious.

It seems to me you are all for rights of the criminal but not for the victim, potential or otherwise.

No it doesn't talk about "law abiding" in 2A but you are just trying to get a foothold while sliding downhill in your argument. Once you are convicted of a crime, and especially of a felony, your rights are severely restricted under the law - doesn't matter what part of the contitution you want to talk about. Wanna go to the store? Forget it. The bar? Uhn-uhn. Vote? Nope. Buy a gun legally? No way.

You tell me where 2A or any other amendment says that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to buy anything they want, to protect themselves against criminals and tyrants, like those who wish to disarm and control them (as slave subjects).

Does that remind you of anyone?

Setanta wrote:

By the way, this is very germane to the topic of the thread. None of those here who oppose restrictions on firearms have been willing to discuss the initial topic of the savage manner in which Zumbo was attacked because he strayed from the holy creed of the the mighty gun lobby. Since then, all that proponents of unrestricted firearms ownership have done is to attempt to quibble about definitions, and to divert the topic from a discussion of what, if any, necessity can be reasonably claimed for particular categories of firearms.

You are in the wrong place. Everything you want to know about Jim Zumbo is here:

http://www.tednugent.com

Nuge gave the guy a chance to redeem himself when nobody else seems willing. Make up your own mind.

McTag wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

..... or any other amendment says that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to buy anything they want, to protect themselves against criminals and tyrants, like those who wish to disarm and control them (as slave subjects). Does that remind you of anyone?

Look out! Here comes another criminal or tyrant!

No, sorry, I was wrong, it was Mrs Jones.

So I'll just clean and oil my guns, and practise my fast draw in front of the mirror.

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

As Comedian Elayne Boosler said, "If it takes you fifty bullets to bring down a deer, you need a new hobby".

The "I wanna hunt with machine guns crowd " are a bunch of douche bags who parade the second amendment issue around like it will ultimately be defined to allow ownership of 105 howitzers .

cjhsa wrote:

2A says ZILCH about hunting. Mutually exclusive in that context.

Yet cj has another thread which would have us all believe that HUNTING is what the assault rifle is best used for. Cant have it both ways cj.

You can own full autos , but you do need extra certification. They are considered a "dangerous weapon" and many are showing up in the hands of the thugs and killers (we just had a little girl sprayed with Tech fire last evening in LANCASTER Pa).

ALL the "scary black" weapons that cj says are hunting weapons can all be retroed to be fired on full auto and cj knows it.

I've never gone hunting and I doubt I ever will. I can imagine that there is a thrill to the hunt, but I think that thrill would quickly turn to a sick feeling when I came upon the carcass of my quarry.

I do like to fish though and I have no problem killing, gutting, cooking and eating my catch, so I try not to judge hunters.

That is to say hunters, not blood thirsty killers.

It just seems that unless success is less than certain, and requires some degree of skill and/or stamina it can't be considered sport. Using automatic weapons to kill animals is slaughter not hunting, and should be prohibited by law if the so-called hunter doesn't have the character to self-restrict.

I'm not familiar, at all, with firearms. I have assumed, perhaps erroneously, that if a committed hunter and firearms expert believes they represent overkill, they do.

I have far less uncertainty however about the fact that the NRA's reaction to this individual's comments represented political overkill. Criticizing the use of these weapons in hunting is hardly the same as challenging anyone's right to own them. It's one of the inherent problems in having highly funded and politically powerful single issue advocacy.