The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Loading

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.

Korean-men-defending-Koreatown-during-the-1992-LA-riot

There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.

onenationundersocialism

Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Hx0JzYcwUiY[/youtube]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
340 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jake Witmer
like other so gifted here give us so much,
this is complete and so interesting to read,
how can one be not inform with what people like you give us free,
just to educate the mass of civilians, who don’t want to be educated in schools
because they find it too boring,
thank you for all you put in without any restraint.
you are giving us a must read

@Tom:

You made the claim that about 32,000 people are killed a year by guns. I would certainly like to know where you get your information since you are so far off the mark. According to the FBI web site, the number of firearm murders per year are:

2007 – 14,916
2008 – 14,224
2009 – 13,752
2010 – 13,164
2011 – 12,664

Do you see a trend there, Tom? In spite of record gun sales for the last four years, homicide by gun incidents are trending downward, not upward.

Now, let’s look at another comment you made:

Or states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence than states with weaker gun laws?

Your quoted source is The Atlantic that for some reason, while it is a recently written article, written after the Newtown tragedy, used 2007 stats. Why is that, Tom? Could it be, perhaps, because the latest stats didn’t hold with the agenda of the author? California has strict gun laws, yet in 2010, there were 1,257 gun homicides there, compared to Texas, which would be one of those states you would claim has lesser gun laws, with 805 total gun homicides. The population of California is not that much greater than Texas to make up for the wide spread in gun-related homicides between the two states. Never mind that if you take the number of murders in California that were committed by the use of a rifle, shotgun or “other” (unspecified gun) the total comes to 354, compared to those murders committed using knifes, “other” (which would include any weapon such as a baseball bat, a hammer, a chain saw, an axe or any other item that can be used as a weapon) at the rate of 570, 60% more than long barrels or “other” guns.

It is quite obvious that you have no intention of being honest in your argument against people being armed. You want to make gun dealers responsible if they sell a product that is used in a murder. Do you want to apply the same standard to knife makers, automobile makers, baseball bat makers? Do you want everyone to register their fists since there are many murders committed where a person is beat to death by someone using their fists, hands and feet?

As I said; you fear what you don’t understand or know about. But instead of educating yourself about firearms, you go off like a cheap one, generally firing blanks. You are a gun grabber, someone who wants the rest of the nation to be responsible for your safety, because you lack the courage to learn how to defend yourself, and reducing the ability of others to defend themselves. You have no argument, only hyperbole, spouted by the rest of your left wing crowd.

Funny, it is well known that in California, there are few who are allowed CCW permits. One author claims that in order to get one you have to be white, wealthy and politically connected. Perhaps that is why Dianne Feinstein has a CCW permit. She is white, wealthy and politically connected. Odd that Ms. Feinstein feels the need to be able to protect herself, yet would deny others that right. She is, and always will be, a typical lefties who thinks her life is more valuable than mine.

No one is responsible for your safety, Tom, not even the police, according to the SCOTUS. And your bigotry is not going to protect you against a bad person who wants to harm you or take your stuff. That is up to you; but if you decide to remain unarmed in a society that is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket, don’t blame anyone but yourself if you are injured, or even murdered.

You blather on how we want to maintain the Second Amendment. That is very true, because without the 2nd, all other amendments are useless. You rail on gun owners, the NRA and states with “lesser gun laws” yet say not one word about the trash that comes out of Hollywood, or the video game makers, as they demand their First Amendment rights. Why don’t you hold them responsible for the violent trash they produce? Or did you not know that the Columbine shooters referred to themselves as “NBKs”, taken from the movie Natural Born Killers?

What about the guns that our own government was running? Do you think those guns are not going to make their way into El Norte via the same drug cartel members they were sold to? Where is your criticism of that? Seems your beloved Obama is the biggest gun runner in the western hemisphere. Yet, you are mute about that.

You need to deal with reality, not how you want things to be.

So according to tom, FIREARMS cause violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

All that gun control sure prevents mass shootings eh?
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

@CJ:

As noted multiple times, those are all false analogies: accidents do not equate to homicides. Do you think if this was just about gun owners accidentally shooting themselves, as tragic as that is, that we’d be having this conversation?

You bring up cars, but are you willing to have a conversation about car regulation vs. gun regulation? Cars are safer now than ever, much safer than they were even 25 years ago, and that’s largely due to government regulation. Do you think your car would have an airbag now if it were not for the government? By the way, what’s the last significant, universally adapted safety measure taken by the gun industry? Don’t bother trying to dig too hard for gun safety data though. The NRA has effectively fought against that research to take place. What fighting against safety research has to do with the Second Amendment, I have no clue, but it’s nice to know they’re looking out for you and your families’ interests.

CJ
yes that is quite a research to be face with,
why is that so many died of all those friggen things,and it all goes
in the same box of excess from the citizens, the so call good citizens
who make fits for gun legally own by the responsible citizens,
wile they are responsible for killing those multi thousands citizens,
thank you for those infos which are priority for OBAMA TO LOOK IN AND FIND A PREVENTION WAY
TO FIX IT. THAT IS 400,000 DEATHS TO PREVENT

Yeah, salon is such a reliable source. (Roll eyes.)

I saw the studies the NRA had a problem with, and they were right to. Shoddy science and conclusions that were arrived at first, then had data created to support that predetermined conclusion. Much if not all of it done with taxpayer money.
That is what it has to do with gun control, but we know you know that.

And since you seemed to miss it, European massacres. They have far stricter gun control laws and THEY can’t stop them from happening either.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

@Tom:

Shoot this suggestion down: No gun shall be sold in this country, by licensed dealer or private citizen, without a background check performed. If one is sold without a background check, and that gun ends up being used in a crime, the seller will be held responsible (whether criminally or othewise is up to further debate).

Background checks are performed by all licensed dealers, including at gun shows — did you not know this? For sales by non-dealers — there are already laws about providing guns to felons. These are ignored by other felons. Change the law for all the good it will do. As far as holding individuals responsible for future problems caused by products sold in good faith — do you support holding gas station owners liable for acts of arson committed with legally sold gasoline? If so, why? I really want an answer.

I see that you had no response to the Harvard study that I linked — the one that concluded that gun control does not reduce crime. Completely ignored it. Explain.

William, I’ve noticed tom ignores that which proves him wrong and repeates the same things over and over. I’ve told him 2-3 times about backround checks and gunshows. Either he’s gone completely mental, or he’s trolling.

Here’s a good quote from AOS
http://minx.cc/?post=335922

In the wake of the Newtown murders, acting President Obama has announced that he wants to have a “national conversation on guns.” I don’t know about you, but I really love these “national conversations”. Of course, we all know that when a liberal says he wants to have a “conversation”, it means he wants those who disagree with him (i.e. us) to shut up and listen to a lecture by him consisting of roughly equal parts of contempt, ridicule, insults, and threats.

tom has done the above in spades.

@Wm T Sherman:

Evasion and misrepresentation. I think you know I’m referring to the 40% of guns sold without background checks. I’ll make it very simple. Do you support mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes or no?

I will get back to you on Harvard when I have time to give it the attention it warrants (travelling today). I think that’s more respectful than the non-response you just afforded me.

Speaking of evasion tom…
Mass shootings in Europe
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

Hard Right
I have that feeling of the MUSLIM KILLING ,
SPECIALLY ON YOUR LAST LINK
we know their death wish on the JEWS, SINCE THEIR BEGINNING, STILL
WELL ALIVE.
and they might be screwing up the young minds
with their propaganda in the schools,
which is the first one to be ban,
forget the guns, they only are tools in the hands of humans,
for two different causes,
the good and the bad causes.
and we know their causes already, even if they try to hide it.

@Tom:

Do you support mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes or no?

Any sale whatsoever between two private citizens? Between me and my neighbor? Not necessarily. It’s open to discussion, but you have to demonstrate that it’s an actual significant source of crime, not something you imagine to be a problem. Facts.

Show me a mass murder committed by a perpetrator who would have been prevented from such a rule. In every case I am aware of the perpetrator either passed a background check or broke an existing law. In the case of Jared Loughner he should have been barred from his legal purchase but his decidedly alarming record was cleared, apparently as a favor to his mother who worked for the Sherriff’s Department.

According to the ATF about 95% of criminals caught with weapons obtained them by violating the law. You are proposing another law that will affect me and not them. They don’t obey the law. They’re criminals.

Again –give us some reason to believe that this is a real problem. Given the lack of evidence it comes across as just another leftist talking point intended to create the impression that law abiding gun owners created a problem.

Ted C Burhenn
hi,
interesting and your type of weapon is as far as giving you the ability to shoot
a pack of wolfs attacking your animals which ever you would have, and from a distance far enough to prevent even one loss of them,
also if you had some employees working in the field far from voice range alert,
again you have a chance to protect them or what ever one or more so to warn them of danger, farther on the 300 feets distance you see, and again this before a kill.
that weapon is handy in my mind for sure.
and more of,
there are illegals hiding in wide space area, and they won’t hesitate to kill you if discover, they also can fake a wound to get the rancher close enough to shoot him.
as it was told by other ranchers, and too bad for the one rancher with compassion to be shot in the back
by the fake wounded illegal hiding the drugs on his land

@Wm T Sherman:

Thoughtful response, which I appreciate. I unfortunately cannot at this time respond in kind as i’m about to board a plane and on my mobile. Would like to pick this up again after the holiday. I wish you a merry Christmas and my thoughts will be with Newtown.

@CJ: heehee… good one CJ… Should you ever find yourself in Oklahoma with some spare time, first round is on me.

Tom
have a good trip and MERRY CHRISTMAS, HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE
BEST TO YOU,
BY THE WAY
WHERE ARE YOU GOING LIKE THIS?

CJ
DON’T VIEWERS GET KILLED BY THE AR?
WHAT IS A AR?
AREN’T YOU COMPLICATING OUR LIFE OR DEATH?
WITH YOUR AR
MERRY CHRISTMAS SIR,
I SUPPOSE WE BETTER START TO BE POLITE WITH YOU OR ELSE.

AR= arm, armony, arithmetic, arrival, aryouwithme, around
areo chocolat bar,
I give up

@CJ:

CJ, I keep my Chinese AK locked up tight. Can’t risk it going out and killing hundreds, now can I?
Merry Christmas.

@ilovebeeswarzone:
Thanks bees. Having my holiday in southern Illinois, right along the majestic Mississippi.

Tom
I know you will make the best of every second of it.

@CJ:

If my sense of humor could take a time machine back to the 1950s I’d congratulate you on your tasteful and hilariously innovative comedy stylings. It really begs the question why there aren’t more famous conservative comedians.

Most of these people are living in the 18th or 19th Century. I don’t feel like reading through the diatribes on gun rights, and the usual invalid reductio ad absurdums, in respect to autos, for example—if guns were actually used everyday, like cars, then there would probably be even most gun deaths than those resultant from cars. Did anyone give a solution to the problem of gun violence? That’s the problem with the right-wing: They don’t care that people are being killed needlessly. All they are concerned about is some trumped up conspiracy of government against them. No need for a solution—just let the continuous distrust of government.

But this situation is understandable. I distrust government when there is a conservative government. But, until this bifurcation is lessened—and a new social contract is agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the members of this schism—then there will continue to be conflict, impeding progress.

@Liberal1 (Objectivity): I gave a partial solution in another post, I’ll let you hunt for it.

Merry Christmas.

@Tom:
Why not just pass a law that prohibits persons from using them to commit a crime? That’s what we’re after isn’t it. It should be okay to sell one to a person that is not going to use them to commit crimes. Anytime one is prohibited from selling to a law abiding person, the constitution is being violated.

@Redteam: heh heh… made me spit beer on my laptop…

@Jake Witmer:

Witmer, this didn’t happen:

Here’s another example from history: In the early 1970s, my father’s draft number came up. But he understood the appeals process. An army truck appeared one day, in Charleston, IL ( Where Eastern, IL University is, and where Lincoln once gave his famous racist speech, stating that his goal was not to make negroes equal under the law, but to “preserve the Union”), and a military man in uniform told my father: “Get on the truck.” Several people already on the truck looked on in disbelief as my father refused to board the truck, destined for bringing newly-aquired military slaves to a military induction center.

At that time, anyone failing to report as ordered would be arrested by civilian police, they would not have been rounded up by the military. I don’t know what point you were trying to make by this misrepresentation, but truth is more important than ‘points’ at times. I didn’t read much after that point because you comment was way too long and rambling.

@Redteam: Thank you, it’s hard to fool people who lived through the era, but I wasn’t up for raining on his parade. Like you, I was confused as to motive and objective.

I’m glad to see a ton more morons got their hands on AR-15s this holiday season. Thank you, NRA, for keeping the bar so low thus protecting us from tyranny!
http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/look-all-these-guns-people-got-christmas/60306/

@Tom: And what does the NRA have to do with the sale of guns Tom? They aren’t a manufacturer or a retailer. Being a member of the NRA isn’ a prerequisite for gun ownership, for example, I own guns and am not a member. Do you have a legitimate complaint, or do you just like to bitch and troll?

@Scott in Oklahoma: @Scott in Oklahoma:

What do they have to do with…. Well let’s see, their primary benefactors, funding wise, are gun manufacturers. They fight all gun laws, regulations, mandatory training, etc. regardless of merit. They fight against research into gun safety. Basically all they do is promote gun sales for their masters regardless for public safety.

Stick around. This conversation will continue but I cant do it on a moble. Merry Christmas.

@Tom: I disagree with your statement. I am a life member of the NRA and the only purpose I’ve personally observed is the preservation of your constitutional rights.

@Redteam:

I respect your opinion. So please point out any law the NRA has supported that regulates sales for the expressed purpose of increasing safety. More simply, has the NRA ever supported any measure that would negatively impact the sale of firearms?

@Tom: You have still failed to answer my question. You still haven’t explained how the NRA is directly involved in the sale of firearms. The have pushed for firearms safety and protection of our 2nd amendment rights, that is thier primary mission.

@Scott in Oklahoma:
:
They are the gun industries’ top lobbyists and work on their behalf. Do you deny this?

@Tom: To the point Tom, first you refer to a large number of people buying AR-15’s as morons, when you have no real way to qualify that statement. Then you insinuate that the NRA was directly responsible for the sale of said rifles. When cornered and asked directly to qualify your statement, you choose to twist your answer around the supposed role the NRA has in the frearms industry, then you say you cannot answer right away because you are on a mobile. Then you post a few more time, trying to get distance from my original questions. And now you ask me to verify something that while being pretty much common knowledge, which still doesn’t show the relationship between the NRA and retail sales of a particular firearm.
If you cannot answer my question clearly and honestly, that’s fine. An indicator of strong character and strength of princilples is having the ability to admit you cannot answer a question. Your inability to do so is quite telling.

@Scott in Oklahoma:

Yes, i am jerk. You win on that point.

So lets talk about the NRA. Are you willing to answer the questions i posed now that you made your point about me?

@Tom: You seem to have reading comprehension issues as well, I believe I already agreed with the NRA role as you described. I’m not out to win anything, I just don’t like it when people say things that are patently not true. When you finally get around to thinking up an honest answer, let us know.

Scott, while we’re waiting for you to answer (duck, ignore) the questions in post 87, let me ad – again – the unanswerable question: when has anyone needed an assault rifle to repel a home invasion?

@Scott in Oklahoma:

If you have no point to make, don’t add static. Sad to hear you have no conviction.

@Tom: I thought you were directing your question to someone else in post 87… that said, I don’t know the answer to your questin as I am not a member of the NRA. As for my convictions, no doubt a lot stronger than yours, and I have a proven track record.

@Scott in Oklahoma:
You’re a brave man. It makes you feel tough to chuckle along with CJ when he mocks the destructive power of an AR-15. One that’s shot children in the face, but when asked direct questions about it, you feign ignorance. You’re a fucking coward

@CJ:

So CJ is calling CT State troopers and local law enforcement into question.i guess my buddy who is a CT cop is a liar because CJ says so. All those cops in CT are liars. Say it to their face, Asshole. Fucking NRA zombie.

It appears Tom gets “brave” behind a keyboard after a few drinks, then he likes to call people names. Tom, you’re a piece of shit troll, no crediblity, no character, and I will no longer waste time with your crap.

@Scott in Oklahoma: @Scott in Oklahoma:

Well i grew up in CT and i have close friends who are cops in CT, so yes I take offense. I try to give this guy CJ latitude because i guess a war hero deserves it but at the end of the day an Asshole is an Asshole and a moron is a moron and he’s proven himself to be both in spades. You have ducked my questions and it is duly noted. You can’t answer them.