bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Bet Obama never thought he would see a video

like this one:



http://WWW.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Right wing bullshit as usual. Here is the history of the NRA according to Wikipedia:

"Origins

The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 17, 1871[12] by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate. Its first president was Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, and Wingate was the original secretary of the organization. Church succeeded Burnside as president in the following year.

Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, causing General Burnside to lament his recruits: "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn."[13] The generals attributed this to the use of volley tactics, devised for earlier, less accurate smoothbore muskets.[14][15]

Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies' marksmanship training programs. With plans provided by Wingate, the New York Legislature funded the construction of a modern range at Creedmore, Long Island, for long-range shooting competitions. Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.[13]

After winning the British Empire championship at Wimbledon, London, in 1874, the Irish Rifle Team issued a challenge through the New York Herald to riflemen of the United States to raise a team for a long-range match to determine an Anglo-American championship. The NRA organized a team through a subsidiary amateur rifle club. Remington Arms and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing Company produced breech-loading weapons for the team. Although muzzle-loading rifles had long been considered more accurate, eight American riflemen won the match firing breech-loading rifles. Publicity of the event generated by the New York Herald helped to establish breech-loading firearms as suitable for military marksmanship training, and promoted the NRA to national prominence.[13]

Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.[16]"


Don't know who these black people are in the video, but they are apparently delusional or just lying.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Don't take everything Wikipedia as the gospel. Anybody can write any kind of junk in it and people, at least some, believe it. If you want the truth go direct to the NRA, of which I am a proud member.
:thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

well another inconvenient truth. Whether a person agrees that Americans have the RIGHT to own and bear firearms, or not is irrelevant.

It is a part of the US constitution.

I've included amendments 1-5 for your perusal.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

And we all know how infallible Wikipedia is.

And lord knows that there is no such thing as left wing BS don't we?

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Since no one is trying to take away your right to bear arms why do you all get involved in a straw man argument?

SCOTUS has said on numerous occasions that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution but the right to bear any class of arms is up to the government. Thus, you cannot go into a gun shop and purchase a machine gun without a federal stamp giving you permission to own one.

I own a weapon or two and I often carry with a concealed permit. I quit the NRA when they came out against background checks. A position they had in the past endorsed.

Why would anyone want to give a nut job the right to purchase a gun! Why would anyone want to give a criminal the right to purchase a gun? Notice that you need a background check to purchase from a gun store. Why not when you purchase from anyone else?

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Post Ignored Due to Source

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

You dislike the poster so much that you felt it necessary to ignore him twice?

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Yup

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

I disagree with the knee jerk rejection of anything that comes from an encyclopedia. A vast majority of the articles in them are written by scholarly experts in the relevant field. The more advanced ones assign experts to all the articles. Wikipedia is in fact a highly respected source. Its articles are profusely annotated, and the publication has a mechanism for the correction of possible errors.

Is there left wing BS? Yes, but not in Wikipedia. The source questions as biased some of its own writing and solicits annotated corrections.

The latest left wing BS I have heard is about the Zimmerman trial. MSNBC has all of its commentators saying unequivocally that Zimmerman murdered Martin, even though the evidence seems to indicate that Martin gave Zimmerman cause to exercise the right to self defense by physically assaulting him. They state unequivocally that Zimmerman had no right to disobey a "police warning" not to follow Martin, and that by doing so he gave Martin the legitimate feeling that he was in danger. Thus, for Martin, a mere suspicion of Zimmerman's motives was justification for assaulting Zimmerman, but Zimmerman had no right to use the gun in self defense, even after he had been pummeled, because Zimmerman started it. Given the evidence that has been publicized about the case, that is BS.

David Packman further discredited himself by stating as fact that Zimmerman had made comments about "fucking coons." That story was discredited as the product of NBC's false editing and interpretation of Zimmerman's calls. Consensus holds that he had in fact said "fucking punks." Zimmerman is suing NBC for that, yet David Packman still refers to it as fact. That is advocacy journalism.

I have been vocal about criminal jurisprudence in the US being unfair to black people. The data shows that they are far more frequently than whites, arrested for the same kind of complaint, charged with more serious offenses, convicted at a higher rate, and given stiffer sentences. That, however, did not make Hispanic George Zimmerman a white person, or automatically mean that all blacks must be acquitted, and all whites convicted to correct past discrepancies. The evidence seems to show that Martin attacked Zimmerman before Zimmerman inflicted any injuries on him. Following him, used by Martin apologists as just cause for anything that Martin did, is not cause for a physical attack. Despite the contrary opinion of a defense attorney whom I strongly respect, I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted in self defense. It also seems to show that Martin was a nasty thug. In death he has been given a kind of moral purification that he is unlikely to have attained had he lived. He is now a saint and a martyr.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup: