Other serious contenders for NRA President

[sanjuancb]

JIMO, given the current political climate, I would say the best person is some one that just just a shade left of center.

Gun control is not a a left of right thing... its a control/ Look what I am doing to protect you thing.

That is why Barack Hussein Obama is now president...the Republicans thought they would compromise and nominate someone left of center. What happened? The hardcore conservatives DIDN'T come out in droves like they usually do, and now we are screwed.

NUGE ALL THE WAY

[tt11758]

That is why Barack Hussein Obama is now president...the Republicans thought they would compromise and nominate someone left of center. What happened? The hardcore conservatives DIDN'T come out in droves like they usually do, and now we are screwed.

NUGE ALL THE WAY

Bingo!!  Sarah Palin was the only thing that got me to the polls.

[brosometal]

Michael makes some of the same points...   
... committed to principle and will actively pursue regaining our rights.

I second your motion.  With the "compromise" of the regulation of fully automatic weapons you tacitly endorse any other control the idocracy deems necessary i.e. CCW's will result in shootouts in the street, "assault weapons" can kill with a look, or any other wild hair the Leftist (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment lest we forget) dream up.  With the risk of beating a dead horse, the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to allow for the VIOLENT overthrow of a possible future tyranny.  There were no provisions for rates of fire.  The common citizen had the same arms as the government.  It was the 18th Century's version of MAD. 

Once we cede the point, we have lost the argument.  (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.  That was not a may not or should not, but shall not.)  It is no wonder the issue of gun control is visited ad nauseam.  We have left a crack in the door.  It may not be a pragmatic stand, but if we are going to be intellectually honest with both ourselves and our opponents, pragmatism has lead us to the position we are in today.

Freedom and Liberty do not guarantee Security and Safety.  It is essentially an easy choice: the more Safety and Security that are demanded the more Freedom and Liberty are sacrificed.

[fullautovalmet76]

I second your motion.  With the "compromise" of the regulation of fully automatic weapons you tacitly endorse any other control the idocracy deems necessary i.e. CCW's will result in shootouts in the street, "assault weapons" can kill with a look, or any other wild hair the Leftist (http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment lest we forget) dream up.  With the risk of beating a dead horse, the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to allow for the VIOLENT overthrow of a possible future tyranny.  There were no provisions for rates of fire.  The common citizen had the same arms as the government.  It was the 18th Century's version of MAD. 

Once we cede the point, we have lost the argument.  (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.  That was not a may not or should not, but shall not.)  It is no wonder the issue of gun control is visited ad nauseam.  We have left a crack in the door.  It may not be a pragmatic stand, but if we are going to be intellectually honest with both ourselves and our opponents, pragmatism has lead us to the position we are in today.

Freedom and Liberty do not guarantee Security and Safety.  It is essentially an easy choice: the more Safety and Security that are demanded the more Freedom and Liberty are sacrificed.

I couldn't have said it better. Great job!