NRA alternatives?

[MolaKule]

A an additional group to support would be the:

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, commonly known as the CCRKBA.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Cut the DOJ hamstrings of the FBI and local police and let them do their jobs. The threat is NOT firearms, it's the attitude the yellow-spined LW politicians, the current DOJ, political correctness, and the pro-Islamist Admin.


This hits the nail right on the head. This completely spineless, gutless administration is trying to shift the blame to the weapon. The problem is ISLAMIC TERRORISM, NOT FIREARMS.

On the contrary, the firearm is the tool citizens need most. If there were as many weapons in possession of the patrons in that nightclub, as there were cellphones, the body count would have been much lower. And they wouldn't have required the cops to kill that POS. Laws will never replace defensive action when it is required. As is often the case, when seconds count, police are just minutes away. The Orlando nightclub massacre again proves the validity of that statement.

The L.A. Police were summoned to O.J. Simpson's home a total of 8 times for domestic violence calls. All were recorded. Domestic violence is against the law in all 50 states. What good did those laws do Nicole? Had she armed herself, perhaps O.J. would have been in the cemetery where he belonged, and not her and Goldman. Cases like this are everywhere. The spinless liberal Democrats don't want to hear about them.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: surfstar
According to you guys, Obama is going to personally knock on your door and confiscate your weapons.


No as usual, he will have some other Gestapo agency do his dirty work.


What is he waiting for then? He's been a "tyrannical" leader of the USA for almost 8 years now. How many of your guns have you had taken away?

All of these executive actions with no congressional oversight, yet you still have all your guns, right?

 

[surfstar]

Fear mongering.

"Donate now to keep your guns!"

 

[MolaKule]

The only fear mongering is by the left.

When has any NRA member gone out and created mass murder.

Why is the NRA, which is composed of law abiding citizens who pay their dues to ensure their 2nd Amendment Rights are not trampled upon, the focus of every Left Wing kook?

I think the answer is NRA members see a slow dissolution of their rights to protect themselves and their families by owning firearms.

Quote:
What is he waiting for then?


He and his schills are attempting to do that right now and have been for the last eight years.

Each time a mass murder situation happens the gun is the cuplrit; never the Pro-Islamist look, never the gang-banger, never the dude using drugs, because to blame them, the real CAUSE, would be Politically Incorrect.

 

[bmwjohn]

GOOD POINT.The Republicans went from nothing to President in just a few years If Libertarians get on the Presidential Debates it might kick us up from the 12?% Gov. Gary Johnson is polling to 15-30?% Of course the Donald, Hillary, Bernie, etc. are ALL opposed to a major 3rd party candidate appearing. However, we draw voters from the 2 parties, and those who stay at home, so we could decide who wins. AND, there are many elections in the US. Quality libertarian candidates can improve the quality of ALL candidates. No more "rotten boroughs", or 1 candidate races.

 

[billt460]

The problem with 3rd party candidates is you wind up with a President that 2/3rds of the population doesn't want. It's basically what a lot of these Banana Republic countries do. "El Presidente" steps down in order to have, "free elections". The people are all dancing in the streets. Only to find 100 candidates on the ballot come election day. Then some idiot wins the election with 2% of the vote. Which means 98% of the people hate his guts. Three months later someone blows his brains out, and the whole process starts over.

The other problem is the one thing Democrats do is get behind a single candidate. Even Hillary was quick to step down, and not risk splitting the vote with Obama in 2008. She could have stayed in. She's got a lot of political clout. She didn't and Obama won easily. The Republicans have people like Ross Perot take votes away from them. The result was 2 terms of Bill Clinton, who won both times with less than 50% of the vote. And Perot never received a single Electoral Vote in the process! All he did was train wreck the election for the Republicans... TWICE.

If you want to have a third party, you first have to get rid of the Electoral College.... And that will NEVER HAPPEN.

 

[Robenstein]

Of course you forget that Lincoln also won the Presidency with a plurality of the vote. I believe firmly that there should and needs to be alternative parties on the left and right in America because we have stagnated into a duopoly of sorts. I was a member of the GOP for a while, but actions of the party both in my state as well as on the national level made me switch to Libertarian after the Iowa caucuses. It will take another Goldwater to get me to switch back.

Another thing to consider is that the office of the Presidency has become far too powerful versus what it should be. A presidential election has far too much hanging on it as the legislative branch has allowed its power to wane far too much in the last century.

 

[billt460]

None of that changes the fact we are a 2 party system by design. There are a total of 538 Electoral Votes available. It takes 270 to win. You cannot divide 538 by a number larger than 2, and come up with a winning candidate. You cannot just add another party. The mathematics will not support it. You must change the system first. And good luck with that. Everything else is nothing but talk and wishful thinking.

 

[Robenstein]

We are not really a two party system by design, it just evolved that way after our first president (a member of no political party, and a man who warned against the destructive nature of party politics to national unity). Subtle but significant difference.

 

[SilverC6]

People on the extreme east and west coasts will never understand the gun issue.

They have never spent the day behind a pair of good bird dogs.

They have never held their grandfather's 1911.

They have never reloaded to tighten up a 1 1/2 inch group.

They have never admired the art, history, and engineering of an early high grade Browning Superposed.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
We are not really a two party system by design, it just evolved that way after our first president (a member of no political party, and a man who warned against the destructive nature of party politics to national unity).


Parties have come and gone. However, the Electoral College is part of the US Constitution, and it was written between May 25 and September 17 of 1787. Don't look for it to be going away any time soon. And until it does, viable 3rd party candidates are nothing more than a pipe dream. The Democrats get that. Republicans refuse to learn it.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: billt460

Parties have come and gone. However, the Electoral College is part of the US Constitution, and it was written between May 25 and September 17 of 1787. Don't look for it to be going away any time soon. And until it does, viable 3rd party candidates are nothing more than a pipe dream. The Democrats get that. Republicans refuse to learn it.

Yup..we are our own worst enemy.Money buys votes it also buys the two party system.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
We are not really a two party system by design, it just evolved that way after our first president (a member of no political party, and a man who warned against the destructive nature of party politics to national unity).


Parties have come and gone. However, the Electoral College is part of the US Constitution, and it was written between May 25 and September 17 of 1787. Don't look for it to be going away any time soon. And until it does, viable 3rd party candidates are nothing more than a pipe dream. The Democrats get that. Republicans refuse to learn it.


I know the electoral college is part of the constitution, I teach American history for a living. My point was that the constitution predates the formation of political parties (first appeared in the 1790s) therefore it did not create a two party system. A third party candidacy is certainly viable according to history under the right conditions. Indeed the GOP's own history bears that out. It was after all a regional party when it won its first presidential election due to the split between the northern and southern Dems and the disintegration of the old Whigs (some of which went with the GOP, and others with the Constitutional Union party)

 

[bmwjohn]

The electoral college was not created to guarantee 2 parties, and most especially not the 2 current parties. One reason was the oppression of small states by big states. In Europe a big concern was feeding large city populations (to prevent riots) even if that meant screwing the rural population that grew the food. I live in Indianapolis, and, like D.C.,we have many old streets that come together in one spot. This was to position troops and block riots - a real concern throughout history. Screwing the farmer was a more traditional alternative to riots. The Electoral College was a way to (partially) prevent that. NOW, Bernie was / is a 3rd party candidate who has substantially influenced the Democratic Party. A strong Libertarian vote can / will influence the winner and his / her policies. Of course, it can also influence / win many smaller races, that richly deserve competition.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: ET16
I am a NRA member, but I disagree with their politics. I think that the NRA has done us all a disservice by promoting military style weapons as they do.


Very true, the NRA has done a lot to allow any lunatic or terrorist the opportunity to arm themselves in a much more effective manner with military style weapons.


When your pitiful nation was about to be overrun by your enemies, not our enemies, the civilians of my nation donated their lawfully owned weapons to the defense of your nation. Few of these donated weapons were repatriated. Most were destroyed.

Subjects of your Queen have zero standing to comment on the civilian gun ownership of my nation. Worry about your own, now virtually complete, gun confiscation.

You may yet need us again.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: ET16
I am a NRA member, but I disagree with their politics. I think that the NRA has done us all a disservice by promoting military style weapons as they do.


Very true, the NRA has done a lot to allow any lunatic or terrorist the opportunity to arm themselves in a much more effective manner with military style weapons.


When your pitiful nation was about to be overrun by your enemies, not our enemies, the civilians of my nation donated their lawfully owned weapons to the defense of your nation. Few of these donated weapons were repatriated. Most were destroyed.

Subjects of your Queen have zero standing to comment on the civilian gun ownership of my nation. Worry about your own, now virtually complete, gun confiscation.

You may yet need us again.

I'm trying to figure out how a member of parliament was gunned down today with the UK being the model for the world when talking about gun control.

 

[CharlieBauer]

"Figure it out"?

Why not read the news.

Looks like a home made gun. He shot her 3 times but she was still alive so he tried to finish her with a knife. She died in hospital.

I have to say though, I don't understand why it's necessary to demean an entire country because you disagree with one of it's subjects posting here. A very childish way of arguing.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
"Figure it out"?

Why not read the news.

Looks like a home made gun. He shot her 3 times but she was still alive so he tried to finish her with a knife. She died in hospital.

I have to say though, I don't understand why it's necessary to demean an entire country because you disagree with one of it's subjects posting here. A very childish way of arguing.

A home made gun? Impossible. It's illegal to illegally make an illegal gun. I don't see anything demeaning. Unless stating facts is demeaning, then it was demeaning. Sorry.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
"Figure it out"?

Why not read the news.

Looks like a home made gun. He shot her 3 times but she was still alive so he tried to finish her with a knife. She died in hospital.

I have to say though, I don't understand why it's necessary to demean an entire country because you disagree with one of it's subjects posting here. A very childish way of arguing.



And what was gun's or knife's intent?

Nada, nothing.

The perp behind the crime had malice and intent.

Get the picture?