i think that the NRA was honestly scared after the election, and that they will still keep their eyes peeled until Obama is gone.
And i thought Sodahead news was supposed to be neutral and non=partisan?
U.S.: Does The NRA Want To Scare You Into Buying Guns?
SodaHead News
2010/05/17 13:57:30
|
|
|||||
|
25 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
174 votes
|
|
63% | ||
|
77 votes
|
|
28% | ||
Between Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, National Rifle Association members received plenty of warning about threats to gun ownership.
At the NRA's annual meeting this past weekend, Palin warned NRA members that President Barack Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment.
"Don't doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment," said Palin. "It's the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks."
Beck, deriding Democrats as Marxists, said, "Let's talk about a well-regulated militia and why you might need one because the government's not doing its job," he said.
Gingrich, who said Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was unqualified, adding, "You don't need hearings" about that, also said, "Government has no business trying to stop you as long as you are a legal and law-abiding citizen."
Gun enthusiasts have trumpeted fears that their rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, driving up sales of guns, but Obama has largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows. Obama also signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
At the NRA's annual meeting this past weekend, Palin warned NRA members that President Barack Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment.
"Don't doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment," said Palin. "It's the job of all of us at the NRA and its allies to stop them in their tracks."
Beck, deriding Democrats as Marxists, said, "Let's talk about a well-regulated militia and why you might need one because the government's not doing its job," he said.
Gingrich, who said Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was unqualified, adding, "You don't need hearings" about that, also said, "Government has no business trying to stop you as long as you are a legal and law-abiding citizen."
Gun enthusiasts have trumpeted fears that their rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, driving up sales of guns, but Obama has largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows. Obama also signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
Read More: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/16/glenn-beck...
As in ownership / responsibility of your and your family / friends personal protection.
When seconds matter , the police are minutes away.
I feel we / I have a responsibility to me,my family, children , to be able to protect myself from the wolf. The sheep feel safe in the flock, the wolf knows there is no safety in numbers, the only safety is the sheep dog.
Are you a sheep or a sheep dog ?
If you answer .... a wolf,,, you have me to fear.... LOL>>
You and your hubby might think about a visit to a gun club to check out the attmosphere... The one I belong to was very friendly to new comer...
I found out that people are real friendly to a person that carries or might be carry a firearm... funny how that works...
but i do believe that there SHOULD be greater background checks at gun shows
and why are these people worried about background checks?
Obama's not stupid enough to try to ban guns, that's a sure fire way to be voted out, but the instigating of background checks... this is a good idea!
what is wrong with it? the only reason you should be worried aout a background check is if you have something to hide
and if you have something that bad to hide, you should not have a weapon
i have not said anything to the contrary of what you have put into your comment
what are you trying to prove to me?
personally, i am happy to be in a country that tightly controls firearms, and there is no way you will convince me otherwise
so what is the point of your comment?
i'm not forcing my opinion onto you, i'm not saying you may not have your guns, i'm saying that criminals should not have guns.
your comment is irrelevant to the discussion
about 30% of illegally trafficked guns pass through gun shows
and guns bought at gun shows often do not become registered to the new owner because these sales are made by private sellers
OVER 60% of private sellers surveyed have admitted to selling a firearm to a person who they think would not have passed a background check!
some merchants *may* perform background checks on their customers, but it is estimated that there are over 60000 guns changing hands each year without the government, without ANYONE, knowing where the hell they've gone
So i might like living in a society without guns, i'm not going to tell everyone else to throw out their guns, however, i am saying that if everyone in America is not going to get rid of them or treat them with respect, it should be of the utmost importance that everything is done to make sure that they don't get into the hand of the people who will misuse them
yes, people will still steal them
yes, violence will still happen
but it will be HARDER to get guns, and violence will LESSEN if all gun sales (including private) have to be registered, and even private sellers have to do background checks
i think it might be even a good idea for there to have to be background checks to even go into a gun shop or gun show
and i've got to admit, i thought that there was only like 1 or 2 states that had the background checks at gun shows, so i was happy to see i was wrong about that
but yes
i mean, i'm not saying that individuals should be banned completely from selling guns, its like selling anything second hand, but i think that it should have to be run through the same database as people who're accredited to sell them, and each transaction should be recorded
because after all, this will protect the seller as well. what if you bought the gun legally, it's registered to you, and then the guy you sell it to goes and kills someone with it? they're going to trace it back to the original owner
i think the reason i'm so passionate about this is partly due to confusion. Some of this just seems to be common sense. it take like 5 seconds to do a background check these days, why would anyone not?
as you said "we have a responsibility to be vigilant and protect others from harm"
of course is everyone was as dilligent, telling their local sherrif and filling out receipts, then that sort of thing would not be necessary
but wherther it's possible to make private sellers do background checks or not, i'm sure it would be easy enought to just have a couple of cops or agents at any gun show, checking people's backgrounds as they enter, or even if you only check the backgrounds of those who leave with a new gun.
something like that
"Once upon a time . . . " Sometimes it seems that news reports about guns or gun owners should begin with that phrase. Those four short words would inform readers that while the story to follow will be presented as fact, it is really fiction, or better said, a myth or a fable. Unfortunately, non-truths, through constant repetition, have come to displace facts in the public dialog about guns in America.
Some of these fables, as many fables do, started out with a grain of truth, but were later misrepresented and twisted to serve a particular political purpose. Others are the product of "advocacy science"-- research designed to promote a particular point of view. Still others are just incorrect assumptions that over time are given the imprimatur of fact. Whatever their source, it is vital that they be exposed as the fictions they are so that they might no longer influence the national debate.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/...
NRA just makes sure they will continue to be able to procure them.
Glenn Beck just lets them know they might need to use them.
:P
What I meant is that if they care so much about protecting 2nd amendment rights, what better way than to arm the citizenry by handing out free guns and ammo to those who can't afford it or to those too lazy to go gun shopping?