Parkland student questioned by school security for visiting gun range

Excellent Post.
You'll rarely find anyone who will openly admit that they would like to ban all private firearm ownership but they do exist and will not rest until they have achieved their goal.
Others who are well intentioned fall for the "compromise" position in which you surrender your 2nd Amendment Rights gradually for nothing but the net result remains the same. The 2nd Amendment will be eviscerated.
Even those who are "only" supportive of banning "assault weapons" know that an AWB will do nothing to reduce our homicide rate but they push for it because it will fail so they can come back later & ban additional classes of firearms until the 2nd Amendment is no more.
Thanks

 

Such as? Give me an example.

Do tell. Prove I am a member of the NRA.

Yes, he did. I even gave Renee kudos for proving me wrong. Would have given you kudos too if you’d done it, but you didn’t. Until now. A little too late.

 

Thank you, and you made some good points as well. I have yet to get a response from those that want stricter gun control when I ask those questions. I’ve been asking those questions for years and I get nothing every time.

 

I did do it, you just didn't believe me. For he was doing it earlier and that is what I was calling him out on.
And I didn't say you were or weren't a NRA member.
I was referring to if he was arrested.

 

uhhhh... okay.

 

I'm a member of the NRA. Joined for the first time last month.

Will never buy another Yeti product either since they became an anti-NRA promotion. The Yeti name used to be a status symbol for sportsmen and women. When I flew on a trip 2 months ago, I looked up which car companies had dropped the NRA and checkout the airlines to know who not to possibly buy a ticket from or rent a car from. The bandwagon of multi-national and super rich companies dumping on the NRA motivated my doing so.

Nearly everything told about the NRA is a lie. Nearly every major federal gun control law in the USA originated with endorsement by the NRA. So much so, that until recently many gun owners would not join, and instead joined Gun Owners Of America. You'll NEVER hear that truth from the media.

 

The Yeti brand is seriously screwed and damaged beyond repair. As a Texas based company it makes you wonder what their management was thinking.

 

Hook, line, and sinker....

The NRA is leaving a bad taste in the mouth of many gun owners nationwide.

The reason?

They no longer promote themselves as a firearms organization. They are, simply, a mouthpiece for stupid gun legislation with the intent of selling more guns. Who is paying their bills? Follow the money.

The NRA does a lot. But, the only thing Wayne LaPierre flings from his pulpit is bogus propaganda. Violent crime is the lowest it's been in generations, but read a NRA mailing and you'd think we are all about to get attacked by Mexican ISIS members, which don't actually exist.

 

Yep, that's why membership is climbing steadily. Got it.

 

Back during the good old days when America was great there was no such thing as "Miranda Rights" because Americans weren't stupid like they are today.

Before liberals totally ****ed up our public education foundation you knew what your constitutional rights were.

Who was this Miranda dude ??? A stupid person ? A foreigner ? An illegal alien ? A liberal ?

 

RE:

But we already know what the real answer is from most hoplophobes and that is to start with semi automatic rifles & then to continue to ban additional classes of firearms until they have something like the draconian, unconstitutional & confiscatory Australian gun ban.

Among the more extreme gun banners to recently speak out is Democratic Rep. Swalwell:

"Dem congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons"

EXCERPT " A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms."CONTINUED

 

Um, Miranda rights were put in 52 yrs ago. I guess you RWers f'd up education way back then when you were just tots or young adults. Shame on them.

Any way, to real people who aren't brainwashed. Our education system does an adequate job. Could be better in several areas of the country, but overall, we are still near the top in the world.
If we could only get the RWers to stop berating hard working educators and stop stealing money from education, it would be a whole lot better.

I am not sure why RWers want to take education back to the 1800s. Can you explain why?

 

52 years ago all Americans knew what their rights were and didn't need a cop telling them what their rights were except stupid people, foreigners and illegal aliens.

If anyone knew what their rights were it was criminals except for stupid criminals and bad hombres who came across the border.

 

I said progressive leftists, and I'm still right about what I said.

 

The NRA has a nice "sticker for your Yeti" program, you should check it out.

 

A claim for which there is no citation of evidence, suggesting that such evidence does not actually exist.

 

Cox said that Feinstein had once said "if she had 51 votes in the Senate for 'Mr. and Ms. America , turn in all of your guns,' they would do it."

This is an inaccurate characterization of what Feinstein said in a 1995 interview on assault-type weapons. It is clear in context about loopholes in the 1994 assault weapon ban that Feinstein would have liked the ban to apply to all assault weapons but did not have the votes.

That is a far cry from banning all firearms, and Feinstein has said she supports the right of people to own a weapon for hunting or self-defense.

But isn’t it interesting that at the NRA conference no one is allowed to carry a gun. I thought guns don’t kill

 

Mother of God...That is quite possibly one of the largest straw men I have ever seen. Does he have a name?
You made him so large you couldn't even defeat your own false premise of an argument. Are straw man tactics all you've got?

 

Hey now, if you read carefully I said she might have been talking about assault weapons (again, whatever those are. Can you tell me what those are specifically?), and not all guns. However the way she phrased herself in using the word "all" was a poor choice of words and people could allude that she meant all guns. I think deep down that is her over all goal. She might say that she's in favor of hunting and self defense, but that doesn't mean I have to believe her.

As an aside, are you ever going to answer my questions in regards as to how far you wish to go with your dreams of banning certain types of firearms?

Here they are again for review -

Let's say your side is successful in banning the AR-15 rifle. Then about six months later some guy with a bolt action rifle pulls off another Charles Whitman? Do you want to go after those next? What happens if someone uses handguns, or a pump action shotgun in a mass shooting? Are those on the chopping clock too? You may say you don't want to take away all guns, yet you seem fine with creating the slippery slope that would most likely lead to just that, and possibly the repeal of the second amendment. How far are you wanting to go in your quest of banning guns?

 

And you keep using the word strawman over and over and yet you create a strawman that all these horrible things are going to happen if we take away A.R. 15’s.

 

What straw man have I created?
What horrible things have I said are going to happen? Can you point to an emphatic statement in which I said anything horrible is going to happen if AR-15s are banned? The only thing close to what you are alluding to is when I said you seem fine with creating a slippery slope which could lead to more bans and possibly lead to a repeal of the second amendment. All I’m asking is what happens after that’s banned and mass shootings continue with other rifles or guns and you still haven’t answered. Why is that?

 

They never answer such questions. They just want to ban ARs now. Don't you worry your pretty little head about what's next on their agenda.

 

You said what could happen . And went from there .I don’t know what would happen if we ban A.R. 15’s. One thing we know is they would not be mass shootings with A.R. 15’s.And you can create your strawman that such and such would happen. You remind me of the people who want to ban weed because it will lead to heroin

 

But meanwhile in the ghetto's it's just another day and a couple dozen children and adults shot and sent to the coroner.. This kind off selective skittishness will not solve this problem.

 

That isn't quite a straw man, it's more speculation than anything. I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying it's the most likely scenario. Maybe I didn't wording myself perfectly, it happens. Let me re-phrase the the underlying question then. What would you want to happen if mass shootings continue, but with different firearms?
Do you honestly think banning the AR-15, or limiting magazine capacity, is going to halt mass shootings? Because if there's one thing we humans are really good at, it's adapting to situations. Do you think those with the intent on becoming a mass shooter will move on to other firearms, or not? Or will they say to themselves "I can't get an AR-15 so maybe I won't do this."?

Did you not see what you did there? Anyway... Here's the interesting thing... I don't want to ban weed, guns, abortions, school choice, and many other things. If anything I would like for our freedoms to expand, or remain intact, rather than have them restricted. I understand that there are limits to some of our freedoms, but I don't want us to create slippery slopes that could lead to more problems than solutions. I'd like to see the gun laws already in place enforced properly rather than adding more laws that will basically do nothing. I'd also like to see the FBI and police do their jobs when someone brandishes a weapon, or makes actual threats online as Cruz did before he went off and murdered 17 people. Just because a few chuckle heads do bad things with firearms does't mean everyone should be collectively punished. We don't do that with alcohol, in fact we tried banning alcohol almost 100 years ago and look how well that went.

The thing that I find most confusing about those that want to ban the Ar-15 is that they don't want to go after the guns that cause most of the gun deaths in our country. Why is that? It's a very inconsistent position. If you want to prevent gun deaths then why aren't you gong after the guns that actually cause the most gun deaths? Or is banning the AR-15 a step to getting to that?