We're all pro-gun here, Paul, but you'll always find someone who says others aren't pro-gun enough because they don't agree with their opinions.
You would have to have some severe severe brain damage to claim to be pro-gun when you post crap like this on a gun related BBS:
Gun control doesn't work? I believe gun control works reasonably generally in Canada, providing a less violent society compared to some others, in good part because of our different culture.
Owning guns and sales of guns is more about hunting and shooting sports than the love and defence of freedom.
The Second is what originalists and others want it to be, the former seeing any variances as infringements. So it goes and ever will be. It is not inviolable and inalienable as some members want all of us to believe.
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.
The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it.
And one of my favorites is this quote by King Brown copied and pasted verbatim from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 where he lambasted the NRA and suggested that they should consider the massive gun control Obama was attempting to shove down our throats as he exploited a tragedy to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights:
(Quote: King Brown)
"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind." (End Quote- King Brown, Post # 308159)It was not possible to put that anti-gun statement made by King in a QUOTE box because that thread was locked by Dave Weber.
Pro-gun guys do not support and defend the most extreme anti-gun politicians such as Barack Hussein Obama, and they do not dishonestly claim that he has "kept his legislative gun in his holster...":
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
It is not pro-gun to frequently criticize the very successful efforts of 2nd Amendment preservation done by our NRA, as King does.
It is not pro-gun to attempt to LULL U.S. gun owners into complacency about the continual threats to our gun rights made by the Liberal Left Democrats that King Brown supports.
Check out King Brown's defense of his hero Obama on violating the Oath of Office by not preserving, protecting, and defending the 2nd Amendment:
With respect, you tend to believe the written as something sacrosanct as it appears in the Constitution and other bills. Look at the Oath you posted: It says only that the president will do to "the best of my ability" to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What he determines "best"---wrongly or rightly.
What kind of 100% pro-gunner looks for dishonest loopholes in an Oath sworn on a Bible... to permit infringements upon the 2nd Amendment?
Answer: NONE.
King seems to think that you cannot be anti-gun so long as you own and shoot a few. A traitor to the U.S. who flies the flag on the 4th of July is still a traitor. His anti-gun words above are but a fraction of the anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric he has posted here. He is also fully aware of the equally anti-gun rhetoric posted by his fellow trolls Ed Good and Jagermeister. He would like to think it is all gone since Misfires was suspended, but I saved it all on a 4TB hard drive to remind him that he is as disingenuous as an abortion doctor who claims to be pro-life.
EDIT: Note that King Brown has edited his post directly above since I posted this. Still flailing... still in denial. He can read his own anti-gun words and still claim to be 100% pro-gun. That is both amazing and very sick. But it is not at all convincing, and will never change my opinion of him and the words he uses to undermine our rights.SECOND EDIT: King Brown has further edited his post above to inform us that he stands by his anti-gun rhetoric, yet still considers himself to be pro-gun. This is a major problem we face. It's high time to reject the Trojan Horses in our midst who undermine us and are no more help to the cause of gun rights than a malignant cancer.
