Once again you have it incorrect, the victims of Obama's scam have never been committed to an institution, as such they wouldn't be in the NICS database, furthermore mental health records of people not committed are barred from being entered into NICS as this would be a violation of HIPPA. Maybe try posting something you actually understand, not just snippets of anti-gun articles with the hope of bolstering your false narrative.
Triggered denialism duly noted for the record in spite of being provided with DOCUMENTED FACTS establishing that NRA-ILA Director Cox was LYING about both Obama and the SSA. Once again I am proven to be 100% ACCURATE about the NRA and gun owners being the PROBLEM!
Sorry you once again have it incorrect, the NRA-ILA was simply guarding the rights of some of the most venerable in our society, the elderly from an administrative back door attempt to strip them of their right to be able to defend themselves, furthermore Cox was not lying, this is proven by the U.S. Congress passing a bill that would prevent any future administrations from trying such a scheme again and that bill was passed into law by President Trump. Furthermore you falsely claimed the NRA has block many laws from being passed or enforced, however you have not yet posted any examples of such, all you have posted was an administrative order handed down to the VA and the SSA, and a order is not a law or do you fail to understand that. My guess is you have nothing, what so ever, to back up your specious claim, which is why you falsely claim to be 100% correct, when in fact you are 100% incorrect, add to that how little you understand about HIPPA, mental health records, NICS and patient privacy. Nor do you realize that the NRA-ILA has attempted 3 times now to have mental health records entered into NICS, but they have been blocked from getting such a regulation passed by the APA who claims such would violate HIPPA, patient privacy and would deter people with mental health problems from seeking treatment, because doing so would get them entered them into a federal database. Your shooting blanks and proving nothing, do you want to try again, maybe this time with an actual law that backs up your claim?
As expected nothing whatsoever to substantiate your personal OPINION as opposed to my providing DOCUMENTED FACTS PROVING that NRA Director Cox was LYING. Same old, same old!
Lets see, so far no proof what so ever that the NRA has blocked the passage or enforcement of any law, just a few anti-gun snippets and a linked article that clearly proves you are incorrect. In other words you are quitting the race, while claiming you crossed the finish line first. That's ok, you have a reputation for losing in this manner and most here can see right through that ruse.
I provided EXPLICIT QUOTES regarding the SPECIFIC LIES told by NRA Director Cox! You have provided NOTHING but your biased opinion which is what I PREDICTED would happen when gun owners are faced with the UGLY TRUTH. Kneejerk denialism WITHOUT even a pretense at substantiation is what happens every single time in the Gun Control forum. Let me predict what will happen next. A bunch of other gun owners/obsessed will chime in with bovine excrement allegations about imaginary "gun grabbers". When faced with DOCUMENTED FACTS that is what always happens. I could set my watch by how PREDICTABLE these Gun Control threads ALWAYS turn out.
First and I'm not making this up, but in the article to which you posted a link to it is clearly stated. "Under this scheme, these folks (SS recipients) would lose their Constitutional rights without due process and with no finding that they are danger to themselves or others -- the standard the government must meet before banning people from gun ownership." Scheme. To make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong. Second, you stated and I quote "The NRA is OBSTRUCTING both ENFORCEMENT of existing laws and any new laws." However the only thing you have brought forth is neither a law nor regulation, in addition you stated "laws" and when a s is placed behind a word that makes it plural as in more than one. As such you have not presented a single law the NRA has obstructed nor less any "laws" (plural). In other words you made up a story that neither matches your claim and worse yet based on the link you posted, claims the administrative order you are referring to is a scheme. Then you admit you are incorrect by noting anytime you get into gun control debate the results are predictable, you lose. But it's been fun allowing you to expose your raw, but unfounded hatred for the NRA and gun owners. And I thank you for that.
The above is nothing more than an admission of defeat on the part of yourself due to being unable to provide anything remotely resembling to proof, as the member Well Bonded has demonstrated. Everything presented on the part of yourself, quite literally everything, is just one fallacy after another, motivated by what is clearly a blinding, seething, all-consuming hatred for anyone and everyone that holds differing political views and ideologies that conflict with your own.
Depends on the state you're in. In mine, finding an intruder in your home in the dark of night is, as a prosecutor friend of mine once said, "all the backstory you need." Since a bad guy could, if verbally challenged, turn and fire upon you before you could react, you are thus absolved of any need to issue said challenge. Plain and simple: a bad guy is in your house, and as such he is automatically seen to be a deadly threat. If bad guys don't want to get shot, then they'd do well to not break into lawful citizens' homes, wouldn't you say?
And thus you prove you don't give an airborne fornication about facts or logic. An armed society is a free society, and a safe society.
Astonishing and abject ignorance demonstrated by someone who clearly knows less than nothing about the subject. Sure, any self-defense plan is one of layers. First layer, a fence or wall around your property; best if posted with "Beware of Dog" or signs from an appropriate security/alarm company. That deters the first tier criminal. Next layer, motion sensor lights which peel off the second tier criminal. Dogs help, but savvy criminals have no problem poisoning them to get in. Criminals can disable alarms. Some know what the police response times are in a given area and know they have X-minutes before they have to worry. Your entire nonsensical raving, full of derogatory comments about "downing a 6 pack" along with all the other folderol is just the ravings of a sheep frantically rationalizing cowardice as a lifestyle, based in your bigotry against anyone who dares think differently than you. I don't drink "6 pack"s of alcohol, or even drink very often at all. Even if I do, I limit myself to one. I don't have to "scrabble around in the dark to find my gun" because it is set in a specific place and easily accessible. I don't wear glasses, because I don't need to. My defensive gun has a red-dot reflex sight on it and a Surefire X-300 high lumen output flashlight, so I have no fear of "firing blindly". I've also developed the ability to wake up instantly and be fully alert. "Only the gullible believe" the tripe you posted above.
I'm not "defenseless" without a gun. I've got the bases covered; from layered defensive systems around my living space to knowledge of unarmed defensive tactics, improvised weapons, and advanced firearms training. My father had a saying: "Most people forget that the primary adage of Murphy's Law is that Murphy was an optimist."
Contrary to your rancid bigotry and prejudice, the majority of gun owners are not drunken hillbillies.
That's just another of those derogatory labels sheep throw up to denigrate and dismiss alternate views. Live for the best case, but plan for the worst case. I am trained, equipped, and knowledgeable of proper survival skills for worst case scenarios... and if that offends the grass-eaters I couldn't be happier.
I was fortunate that I grew up in a family of law-enforcement officers and military veterans who understood the taking of human life and the emotional repercussions of it... and of how the reaction of other people can affect you adversely if you don't prepare for it psychologically. I was fortunate to have had that training, and had the discussions with my grandfather and others who had taken life in the line of duty. Putting such things into perspective is a lot easier that way; as is having the resource there after the fact to sit with you and talk to you about the emotional maelstrom that comes afterwards. I was blessedly spared the civil litigation in the aftermath; something I am eminently thankful for.
Right to life encompasses the right to defend that life, and thus the right to possess the most effective means with which to conduct that defense.
I was not specifically referring to you but if you feel the hat fits..... But as others will tell you we do not feel the need for so much security in many places here in Australia. I wont say every suburb in every city but here “self defence” is NOT a legal reason to be a gun owner so we have other ways of defending ourselves And Murphy and all of it’s collolaries dictate that the one time you need a gun one will not be at hand
Where does it say that in the UDHR? You could also argue that “Right to life” must mean free health care
Dear Gods What part of “joke” do you yanks not get??? I was trying to pull his leg by inferring that he was old enough to be using a muzzle loader as a young person (I HATE explaining jokes)
The UDHR was not "U" enough, as it was composed by individuals who didn't truly respect HR. Lots of feel good statements about 'rights' that aren't 'rights' at all and blatantly ignoring rights that are truly legitimate. You could. I'm not against said interpretation.
