NRA Once Again Defends 2nd Amendment

[Sistrin]

According to a story reported by the New York Daily News, and practically everyone else, in response to an attempt to reintroduce legislation to the House, legislation which had already been voted on and defeated in the Senate, the NRA issued a tweet referencing one of the House committee members, former Representative Gabby Giffords.

"Gabby Giffords: Everyone Should Have to Pass Background Check My Attacker Passed"

Source: https://twitter.com/NRA/status/573503335468306433

And:

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-sick-reference-gabby-giffords-attack-article-1.2139045

Many on the left are, of course, reacting in typical fashion, displaying all levels of outrage over the insensitivity of the NRA. From the Daily News:

"WASHINGTON — Hitting a new low in its bullying barrage against gun laws, the National Rifle Association on Thursday targeted Gabrielle Giffords in an attack mocking her 2011 shooting."

No, the NRA was not mocking Giffords shooting. They were pointing out that the shooter, Jared Loughner, passed the background check required in order to buy a firearm. The NRA was also attempting to point out in the case of Laughner the background check neither solved nor prevented anything.

POLICE: BACKGROUND CHECKS CANNOT STOP POTENTIAL CRIMINALS

"After an investigation into Wilmington, North Carolina’s February 6 murder-suicide revealed the alleged gunman had gone through criminal and mental background checks for his weapon, New Hanover County Sheriff Sgt. Jerry Brewer explained that background checks cannot stop potential criminals, only actual ones."

Source: Police: Background Checks Cannot Stop Potential Criminals

Therefore Giffords and other Democrats are attempting to push a previously defeated bill requiring even more background checks, or more intensive ones, or ones conducted and approved only by employees of Mother Jones, or some such. In response the NRA only repeated what Giffords herself is lobbying for in an effort to illustrate the absurdity of the House Democrats argument.

Yet once again we must be subjected to the continual blare of manufactured outrage over a comment which only illustrates the truth. But truth is never the friend of the liberal/progressive agenda, therefore instead of an actual discussion of the issue we get mockery and profanations.

 

[bill5]

Well no bias here.

In other shocking news, it's been reported that Al Sharpton defended Affirmative Action! Whoa no way, seriously?? Film at 11!

 

[Autumnleaf]

The NRA are fighting for people's right to own guns and ammo. That is only important if people ever need guns and ammo.

 

[Vylo]

The irony of that picture is that Hitler actually gave back many gun rights to Germans.

 

[mafwons]

The NRA are fighting for people's right to own guns and ammo. That is only important if people ever need guns and ammo.

People don't need guns and ammo, big daddy O. will keep.us from harm, and.if you don't believe that he has a drone with your name on it.

 

[rambot]

The NRA are fighting for people's right to own guns and ammo. That is only important if people ever need guns and ammo.

The public will ALWAYS be out gunned by the military. It's simply a matter of common sense. Having a public that loves guns also gives licence for the powers to have more and better guns as they have the ability to argue (100% truthfully or not) that they are dealing with more dangerous weapons coming at them.

So in the meantime, I guess things like children's lives will have to be sacrificed for TRUE gun freedom.

 

[HannahT]

Sigh. Sadly, Mrs. Gifford said her assailant PASSED his background check.

What people don't wish to look at is HOW he passed the background check. Is it something we can fix, or would that infringe on to many rights of others? Is it possible to find a medium we need to live with. Like it or not people will get guns and shot others with or WITHOUT background checks, legally buying guns, etc.

You need to do the best you can with what you have to work with.

To often today - instead of using common sense - we use emotional tactics, and throw out requests for laws that wouldn't fix the circumstance that started the whole mess to begin with. When you point that out? Again emotional, manipulative dramatic talking points...and when you point that out? Your a bully.

I will never understand WHY people get so defensive when the truth is presented. You can't FIX something - or do your best to fix it - when we go to these extremes.

Personally? I think the Politian's use the drama to their advantage, because they can spin the wheels constantly...and then say they are trying to HELP but the other side isn't cooperating.

Notice the heat is off them, and they can go on their merry little way. People allow them to look like angels, and in reality they just used them big time.

Why do people allow this happen? These nutters bring out the drama tactics, and no one notices that nothing EVER gets done? There are plenty of DEMS that support guns, and many other items that are brought up. They make sure they aren't heard from, and pretend they don't exist. It's easier just to blame the other side...and again the heat is off them to accomplish anything.

Pointing out background checks didn't SAVE Mrs. Gifford doesn't mean society is okay with mass school killings. Why people buy that line of bull is beyond me - it accomplishes NOTHING! Its so dramatic, and yet its not rational thinking at all. Its a stereotype invented by lazy Politian's that don't want to deal with this.

 

[South Bound]

So in the meantime, I guess things like children's lives will have to be sacrificed for TRUE gun freedom.

Yes. It's a conundrum. Do we sacrifice safety for liberty? Or do we sacrifice liberty for safety?

It's tragic when anyone dies, let alone, a child. I was a paramedic for many years and whenever the dispatcher told us it was a child, our hearts raced a little faster and the knot in our stomachs were a little bit tighter.

While we all want to protect children, and should do everything reasonable to do so, do we protect children by taking their liberty away? Do we protect them by taking liberty away others, for something that would not even be prevented by taking those liberties away?

Countless men have died because they believed death was not worse than living under tyranny, a tyranny that would deprive men of the natural rights and destiny God intended.

These men died precisely so that their children could be free. Are their children any less deserving of liberty?

 

[South Bound]

The irony of that picture is that Hitler actually gave back many gun rights to Germans.

After they were dead???

 

[Sistrin]

The irony of that picture is that Hitler actually gave back many gun rights to Germans.

Somebody had to go hunt down all the Jews. And then guard them. And then herd them to the gas chambers.

 

[mafwons]

The irony of that picture is that Hitler actually gave back many gun rights to Germans.

Ah yes the ss they did indeed have guns.

 

[Vylo]

After they were dead???

Nope while they were very much alive. There were many reasons, such as:

Somebody had to go hunt down all the Jews. And then guard them. And then herd them to the gas chambers.

The USSR would take your guns so you couldn't defend yourself against the government.

Nazi Germany on the other hand, relied on making its people love the country and government so much they would gladly take up arms to defend it.

 

[Sistrin]

The USSR would take your guns so you couldn't defend yourself against the government.

A model many in the US today truly envy.

 

[Vylo]

A model many in the US today truly envy.

I think they would more envy less totalitarian states.

Me personally, I favor the 2nd amendment.

 

[Supreme]

I actually think the NRA has a point here. Background checks certainly would not have saved Mrs Giffords in her case. Americans just have to accept that, living in a country with a high rate of shootings is the price they pay for having such widespread access to guns.

 

[Aldebaran]

"Gabby Giffords: Everyone Should Have to Pass Background Check My Attacker Passed"

Wait, what??? If a background check didn't stop her attacker, then what difference would it make if everyone else passes the same background check?

I guess whatever sounds good, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

[mafwons]

Wait, what??? If a background check didn't stop her attacker, then what difference would it make if everyone else passes the same background check?

I guess whatever sounds good, even if it doesn't make sense.

Yes the second ammendment did not provide for background checks so lets eliminate them.

 

[South Bound]

Yes the second ammendment did not provide for background checks so lets eliminate them.

Agreed. Since when do we have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutionally protected right?

 

[StephanieSomer]

The irony of that picture is that Hitler actually gave back many gun rights to Germans.

Do you not recognize that if a "right" can be removed or granted by a government that it is NOT a "right"? Under those circumstances, it is a privilege, not a right. Our Constitution does not grant rights, which many people think it does. It recognizes their existence and states that they will not be infringed upon. So, no, Hitler did NOT give anyone their rights.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Yes. It's a conundrum. Do we sacrifice safety for liberty? Or do we sacrifice liberty for safety?

It's tragic when anyone dies, let alone, a child. I was a paramedic for many years and whenever the dispatcher told us it was a child, our hearts raced a little faster and the knot in our stomachs were a little bit tighter.

While we all want to protect children, and should do everything reasonable to do so, do we protect children by taking their liberty away? Do we protect them by taking liberty away others, for something that would not even be prevented by taking those liberties away?

Countless men have died because they believed death was not worse than living under tyranny, a tyranny that would deprive men of the natural rights and destiny God intended.

These men died precisely so that their children could be free. Are their children any less deserving of liberty?

Why do people so easily ignore the huge numbers of lives which have been protected by legal gun owners? Why do they instead want to point to a handful of lawbreakers and use them to justify the removal of valid and proper use of such weaponry?