Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: The NRA [Re: zeronio]
    #733299 - 07/09/02 08:30 AM (21 years, 9 months ago)

***The North Coreans are threatening civilized world, if we don't defend they will take over.***

you're sounding a bit naive....i'm glad i'm the one with the gun.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePGF
square

Registered: 07/20/00
Posts: 8,642
Loc: Malaysia
Re: The NRA [Re: Innvertigo]
    #733455 - 07/09/02 09:27 AM (21 years, 9 months ago)

I don't want to sift through all these posts; just want to add that i support the NRA. They are a strong lobbying force that has kept the gov from taking away our weapons. We have a right to bare arms. It is in our constitution. Thank you NRA.


--------------------
***The Real Shroomery nigger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/04/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: The NRA [Re: PGF]
    #733459 - 07/09/02 09:27 AM (21 years, 9 months ago)

think of the children....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePGF
square

Registered: 07/20/00
Posts: 8,642
Loc: Malaysia
Re: The NRA [Re: nugsarenice]
    #733627 - 07/09/02 10:09 AM (21 years, 9 months ago)

what about the children?

think of all the neegrits on the street waiting to break into your house and shoot you and steal your TV for they crack habit....

think about that.


--------------------
***The Real Shroomery nigger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefrancisco
Richman Sporeman
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 133
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: The NRA [Re: foghorn]
    #751015 - 07/16/02 12:28 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

It is a last defense against tryanny.the old "give me liberty or give me death."All of mankind has this right,america enumerates it.I would die defending the constitution and it's principalsThe NRA has brought together like minded people who will never lay down thier arms,who will never give up their freedom.


--------------------
Well...Maybe just a little.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefrancisco
Richman Sporeman
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 133
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: The NRA [Re: stan]
    #751032 - 07/16/02 12:36 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

Do you take the teeth out of children that bite?Do you cut the feet off of people that kick?No,you punish them.You don't ban teeth or feet.One thing i can tell you,if someone comes into my house in the dead of night to hurt me or take my belongings,I have the means and the right to protect mine.You should stay in Australia where it is safe.


--------------------
Well...Maybe just a little.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 20 years, 2 days
Re: The NRA [Re: ]
    #751080 - 07/16/02 01:15 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

nobody has answered your question yet.

according to the history channel, an assualt weapon is a fully automatic rifle that fires small calibre hangun (as opposed to rifle) ammunition, making it less unweildy than a machine gun in an fast assault.


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefrancisco
Richman Sporeman
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 133
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: The NRA [Re: zeronio]
    #753498 - 07/17/02 11:52 AM (21 years, 9 months ago)

well,You have less freedom.Bet you wished you had a gun when commies had you by the short hairs..


--------------------
Well...Maybe just a little.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineI_Fart_Blue
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 3,495
Loc: SItting on the Group W Be...
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: The NRA [Re: ]
    #753780 - 07/17/02 01:52 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

Let me first start out by saying I am not giant fan of the NRA because I think they spread just as much propoganda as the extreme-leftists who wish to ban all guns. However the NRA does do a lot of good to A)protect the rights of American citizens to own arms, an B) do a good job at educating children, and adults for that matter, the responsibility of gun ownership. I love to shoot personally, and while I do not own a gun as I am a poor assed college student, I hope to own one one of these days. However I have a few questions about some previously mentioned things.

Would somebody, preferably Evolution or luvdemshrooms, please define a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol? An assault weapon? Please don't blow this off as I am trying to have a serious discussion. So please don't try and play politican as I find that many of you are too intelligent to be a poltician, so the act does not fit you well.


luvdemshrooms, on the first page you posted the following:
"You rarely read about the many positive uses of firearms each year, but there are many. The NRA has programs that teach gun safety to kids (Eddie Eagle) who's main message to kids is "Don't touch, tell an adult", there are "Refuse to be a victim" seminars, competitions, trining for law enforcment, and much more. "

While I agree with your statements about the gun safety program I would like you to expound on the first sentence. While I agree with you for the most part I am curious to see your thoughts on the subject.

What are people's opinions on wating periods? I personally agree with them, and while I feel that a criminal is more likely to buy a gun off the black market rather than through a reputable dealer, I also feel that such laws may prevent the average joe from commiting a crime/murder out of passion. On the Gun Control Myths page that Evolution posted I did not see any good rebutle to the Brady other than the fact that it infringed upon the rights of a citizen to own a firearm and that "if you or a family member face an immediate threat, a five-day wait can be a death sentence. The police cannot be everywhere when they are needed. You must be prepared to defend yourself and your family when necessary." Gimme a break. How rational is that statement? What kind of threat are we talking about. Can anybody provide evidence where somebody has died because they had to wait to purchase a firearm. Comments, thoughts, etc?


Consider the following quotation taken from the seventh amendment:
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "

Can somebody point me to where I have the constitutional right to kill another human in defence of myself or family? Being that it is constitutional law would this make any state law which says otherwise unconstitutional? Mind you this is not saying that I would no kill in defense of myself or a loved one, I'm just an inquireing mind.

Well that should be enough for now......


--------------------
"A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind. I do not know which makes a man more conservative-to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." -John Maynard Keynes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The NRA [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #753885 - 07/17/02 02:25 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

In reply to:

please define a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol? An assault weapon?




This is not a joke, it's exactly what you called it. A a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol. It is not an assault weapon. The so called "assault rifles are fully automatic weapons. While full autos are still legal for purchase, they are generally quite expensive and require something called a "tax stamp". The last I checked these cost $200 and one must be purchased for each full auto weapon. Sometimes these are also refered to as Class 3 permits. The more commonly used (by the anti gun crowd) term "assault weapons is an incorrect usage of the term chosen to make the weapons sound more destructive.

I'll respond to the rest later as I have an oppourtunity to dip my own private weapon in a nice warm location.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineI_Fart_Blue
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 3,495
Loc: SItting on the Group W Be...
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: The NRA [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #753996 - 07/17/02 03:02 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

Ok, good, I just wanted to clarify that there was a significant difference between an assualt rifle and a "a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol". If you follow the link about assault rifles posted in the myths links by Evolution, you will see that the incedent they give states that she may have been able to defend herself if she had the aformentioned firearm. This is why I why I was kinda curious as to what one defined as an assault rifle vs. what one defined as a "a high-capacity, semi-automatic pistol".

So having that being clarified please justify the ownership of assualt rifles. Also consider that durring the framing of the constitution automatic weapons and handguns as we know them today did not exist. Please be prepared to defend against this. Also I will not accept the "defense against the government" as a justifyable reason for automatic weapon ownership. The government will always have the upperhand as far as weapons/technology. I do not buy into the BS in the link provided by Evolution that the government could seriously be defended agaisnt with simple firearms. I think any military stategist would find that link rather comical. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on automatic weapons so I was just kinda curious.


--------------------
"A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind. I do not know which makes a man more conservative-to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." -John Maynard Keynes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The NRA [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #754134 - 07/17/02 04:32 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

I'm back.

In reply to:

"You rarely read about the many positive uses of firearms each year, but there are many. The NRA has programs that teach gun safety to kids (Eddie Eagle) who's main message to kids is "Don't touch, tell an adult", there are "Refuse to be a victim" seminars, competitions, trining for law enforcment, and much more. "

While I agree with your statements about the gun safety program I would like you to expound on the first sentence. While I agree with you for the most part I am curious to see your thoughts on the subject.




There are thousands of cases each year where firearms are used to defend ones self and others. The major media has a well known bias, and as such gives little if any notice to them. A commonly quoted statistic is that Americans use gun 1 to 1.5 million times a year to prevent crimes. Assume for the sake of arguement that the true number is half that. Why are these incidents not covered by the press?

Waiting periods? Silly in most instances. I already own firearms. I won't say how many but I'm quite proud of my collection. How, if I wish to do someone bodily harm, will a waiting period stop me? As for the info from Evo's link, there are actually quite a few cases where had people been able to quickly get a firearm they would have been the better for it. Try this link and go to the archives.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

In reply to:

Can somebody point me to where I have the constitutional right to kill another human in defence of myself or family? Being that it is constitutional law would this make any state law which says otherwise unconstitutional?




Doesn't this count?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


I don't believe there is a state in which it is illegal to kill in self defense, or to kill while protecting another. Here in NH it's even legal to shoot and kill a rapist or arsonist.

In reply to:

So having that being clarified please justify the ownership of assualt rifles.




The second ammendment isn't enough? Well, quite simply, they're fun. Until you've shot one, you'll never understand.

In reply to:

Also I will not accept the "defense against the government" as a justifyable reason for automatic weapon ownership.




You don't have to. It's still a valid reason. I would take up arms against my government should the be sufficent reason. And what about other governments? While the chances may be slim we should ever need full auto weapons on U.S. soil, better safe than sorry.

In reply to:

Also consider that durring the framing of the constitution automatic weapons and handguns as we know them today did not exist.




Neither did radio or television. Should they not be protected by the first ammendment?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The NRA [Re: francisco]
    #754978 - 07/17/02 10:33 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

"well,You have less freedom.Bet you wished you had a gun when commies had you by the short hairs.. "

Yes I live in an ex-communist country, but funny... more people wish to have guns now when capitalists have them by the short hairs.

Since you are all well informed about bad sides of communism (most of them is true) but there is also some good stuff. We had things like free medical care, free education, almost 0% of unemployment, companies you worked for gave you apartments and payed for vacations, no crime (at least organized...), possesion of drugs was tolerated, ... (all this was a nightmare for company owners, of course). We were not a part of easten block, so we didn't have to sponsor cold war and we were free to travel to all western and easten countries. Our passports were the most wanted in the black market of fake ID's.
When democracy came, newly elected politicans caused war, destroyed the country and killed thousands. The war happened when armed people decided to defend themself from each other. You all now the results.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: The NRA [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #756526 - 07/18/02 01:59 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

PISTOL: Synonymous with "handgun." A gun that is generally held in one hand. It may be of the single-shot, multi-barrel, repeating or semi-automatic variety and includes revolvers.
ASSAULT RIFLE: By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.
ASSAULT WEAPON: Any weapon used in an assault (see WEAPON).
HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINE: An inexact, non-technical term indicating a magazine holding more rounds than might be considered "average."
I hope you don't mind my putting forth these definitions. As you can see these are clear, mostly, to the true nature of the weapons in question.

What constitutional article purports to allow me to take the life of another person? The second amendmant of course. Do we not have the right to life? If this is so, how may we protect that right from those that would seek to infringe upon it? We could learn, effective, hand-to-hand techniques; this would be good if the instigator were unarmed and we were not a 5' tall 105 pound woman. We could learn, effective, edged weapon fighting techniques, provided of course, using the same 105 pound woman example, that our attacker were not 6' tall, having a full foot advantage in edged weapon combat. Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we could ensure, through some sort of "written constitution" that the MEANS for self defense were adequately enunciated to allow for no confusion as to what was available for self-defense. This is most assuredly a broad interpretation of the second amendmant, but surely your right to life would insist that you had some means to provide for that defense, and so it is included in the constitution; this does not remove the right to defend ones self from government entitys.

Your assertion that the argument that another entity, namely the federal government, has much larger guns negates the right to bear arms with significant firepower is insufficient. Just because the bully is bigger is no reason to turn tail and run. For an historical example one need look no further than our own countrys founding. We took on the most powerful empire ever built, we were outnumbered, out gunned and over matched, and, if I remeber my history correctly, we kicked their asses. Granted, we did have a little help from the French.

Gun ownership is essential to individual liberty. One MUST have the means to defend ones self, be that in defense of home and family from a criminal or a government bent on removing from us our liberty. One can argue for the less violent means available, but, if you removed the second amendmant, by what means would you be able to insist on being respected? By what means can we ensure our liberty, if not with the means of violence that is being used against us? I abhore violence, as I am sure most of you do also, but, and I say this without bravado of any kind, their exists in this world violent persons, both of the individual and political entitys, I have no wish to engage in a fight with some entity that has very large tanks, but as a U.S. citizen, I have every right to do this should it be neccesary.

By the way, since when did defending ones self become a "wrong" act? Even if that self defense resulted in the attackers death.
My father once told me, long,long ago, "son, when confronted with the evil of violence smite them hip and thigh". My father, being of a religous background, and my being young at the time, led me to question his wisdom. When I asked the purpose of stiking an individual "hip and thigh" he relented and suggested that I strike them "BETWEEN the thighs", and even at a young age I could see the sense in this.
I'm afraid I don't see the sense in NOT striking at all; I will be just as dead and the offender will continue on to the next unaware person.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: The NRA [Re: foghorn]
    #757388 - 07/18/02 07:10 PM (21 years, 8 months ago)

I just shot your grand dad with a shotgun.

DOESN'T MATTER!


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: The NRA [Re: mr freedom]
    #758856 - 07/19/02 09:42 AM (21 years, 8 months ago)

Ok, I'll try to be short here.

It's simple, in a civilized society, guns would not be necessary; we do not live in a civilized society. The society that I live in, namely the U.S., is quite a violent society. I have no major concern in this, I accept my role and responsibility in providing for my own self-defense. I learned this responsibility from my father, a, not to unintelligent man, who belives in the RESPONSIBILITY of defending oneself. Since when did defending ones self become a "wrong" act. "Two wrongs don't make a right"? My father once told me, long,long ago, "son, when confronted with the evil of violence smite them hip and thigh". My father, being of a religous background, and my being young at the time, led me to question his wisdom. When I asked the purpose of stiking an individual "hip and thigh" he relented and suggested that I strike them "BETWEEN the thighs", and even at a young age I could see the sense in this.
I'm afraid I don't see the sense in NOT striking at all; I will be just as dead and the offender will continue on to the next unaware person.

It is in no way an immoral act to respond to a deadly attack with deadly force; "There is no such thing as a fair in a fight involving death".

The primary defence of handguns is and always has been, self defense. Perhaps in your world the police and authoritys are very fast in responding to your plight, that is not true here, in the U.S.; the authoritys are to busy tearing up marijuana gardens.

The primary argument AGAINST handguns is that "they are more likely to be used against the owner of the gun, or the owners family". I can't argue this point, I have no statistics that are not disputed by the NRA(lifetime member ) or these researchers: http://www.ereliant.net/~tagvhou/homicide.htm

I can't dispute these facts, nor would I try,
the question as to handgun ownership is not about what they might be used for but for what they are INTENDED to be used for.

In this country, a long time ago, free persons were held to a responsibility of defending themselves and their property, also, in cooperation, to defend ones neighbors and property. This responsibility goes hand in hand with the right to be free; from intrusion in our lives by those that would injure us in any way, this INCLUDES government agencies.
This RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY has been, mostly, removed from todays society. We turn a blind eye to the violence and theft commited against our neighbors and they in turn ignore our plight.

My first memory of violence was as a small child. My father was in the U.S. Navy and my mother and I were on base in San Diego, while he was at sea. I remember a woman screaming, and my mother ran outside, I was at the open door. I don't remember what the woman was screaming, I was told later, I do remember that the sailors, that were on leave, were beating up some man, he was quite bloody when the shore patrol arrived.
What was the woman screaming? Rape; that was what she was screaming, and her neighbors came to her defense in numbers, women as well as men. Would that be the case today? Hell NO!!Go to any rape prevention center and read their pamplet on how to prevent rape. The pamplet tells women to scream FIRE, because no one responds to someone screaming rape or help.

This sickens me, that people today would so eagerly give up their rights and ignore their RESPONSIBILITY to defend themselves and their neighbors. Instead they happily foist this responsibility on government and local police. The governments responsibility in the defense of my home is and must be limited, I MUST have the right to defend myself, my family, my property and my neighbors and, if necesary, to defend myself from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

This is the reason for people to own and be trained in the use of fire arms, all fire arms; M16's, M60's and my personal favorite the Action Arms UZI .45 caliber. The REASON for fire arm ownership is to allow us the right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from ANY invader; be that a rapist or a government gone bad.

I am sure that those not from the U.S. have studied U.S. history. But, I doubt that they will ever be able to get a sense of the responsibility that some US citizens, still feel, about self defense. I also doubt that any history book you read will give any thing, other than some twisted notion, that guns are some obsolete method of self defense that is no longer required.
I also understand that, without a history of liberty of the individual, and individual responsibility, which are not a factor in any country but this one, one will never beleive that a person should rely on himself and his neighbors; NOT THE GOVERNMENT for protection.

I hope, one day, to live in an age where guns are only put on space ships to prevent attack of the earth. I hope, one day, the only discussions of guns is in an historical reference to our past.

Until that time I will ask of NO MAN to defend me with his life, if I am unwilling to denfend it myself. For if I do, then I have NO right to live; this is the essence of COWARDICE.

------------------
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* what is the militia?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,470 32 11/12/04 10:03 PM
by retread
* Canada's Liberal party promises to completely ban handguns
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 1,980 20 12/11/05 11:05 PM
by chodamunky
* Handguns vs. Rifles
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Tao 6,170 74 03/18/04 11:14 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Iraqs rebuke to the NRA
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,839 39 09/25/04 01:00 AM
by Xlea321
* NRA Leader Advocates Guns for Teachers
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 4,462 64 03/29/05 07:40 PM
by SoopaX
* A few "welfare" myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Xlea321 12,403 177 07/30/03 05:19 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Why do you own firearms?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TheOneYouKnow 4,927 63 03/22/04 10:23 PM
by Ekstaza
* Firearms.
( 1 2 3 all )
ray40cal 5,085 49 06/10/08 08:48 PM
by whatsgrimace

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,081 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.