One member believes that the be-all and end-all of our humanity is guns. It's his right. To declaim others rhetorically and without reason who think otherwise is wrong.
Members enjoying the use of firearms, having different opinions of regulations and their use, have shown no disloyalty to our fraternity or governance by their comments.
It's "the American way." My way or the highway doesn't work.
Not at all surprising to see you jump in King, to defend your fellow anti-gun troll Ed Good, and your dysfunctional little pen pal Gladys.
Despite your curious and insane proclamations and denials, calls for disarming the American public and support for anti-gunners actually is very disloyal to "our fraternity" of gun owners. We all know that is not your fraternity, which is composed of Liberal Left Socialist loons who work relentlessly to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment rights. It would be nice, and civil, if you could offer a shred of proof that "One member believes that the be-all and end-all of our humanity is guns."
But you can't, and you still can't stop lying.
Thanks for chiming in King, even though your insanity has nothing to do with grouse populations. This will be your legacy here... your longstanding defense of Liberal Left Democrat anti-gunners, and your anti-NRA, anti-2nd Amendment, and anti-gun rhetoric. It doesn't play well on a firearms enthusiasts forum, and if you had any sense at all, you'd get that.
For some of our new members and visitors who haven't see your stuff:
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.
....Americans choose how they want to live, accept mass murder, mass school executions, mass incarceration (suddenly recognized as wrong). As much as they dislike it, little is done about it. Democracies make choices but few modern countries are as burdened in solving these societal problems as the US with three centuries of a ruinous race legacy.
Owning guns and sales of guns is more about hunting and shooting sports than the love and defence of freedom.
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.
Pew Research has a good reputation, Jim. It's a source in the link Ed posted. Crime is declining in Canada, too, although our tougher-on-crime federal government can't build jails and penitentiaries fast enough.
Misfires seems near unanimous that there's no correlation between the number of guns and surpassing US gun violence, and that more guns lowers a homicide rate experienced nowhere else in the developed world.
I believe there is a connection---as most liberals do--- and that those conservative and liberal countries with exceedingly lower rates are a result of their democratically chosen, more-onerous, freedom-restricting regulations, common-sense or not.
I commented earlier on the cultural differences between the US and other countries in this respect, including how differently the US and Canada developed. Why do Americans dismiss the graphs and statistics?
Then there's this little gem where King attempts to link our Constitutional RKBA to an insane allegation that we "accept" mass murder and mass school shootings:
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
But only you could see your own anti-gun rhetoric, and calls for disarming Americans by your friend Ed Good, and actually say this:
Fifteen years of my almost daily visits here confirm there are no anti-gun members.
When lies and dishonesty become as reflexive and second nature as breathing, you'll have that.
Of course, there's lots more of the same sort of crap you posted here. Your weird little pen pal friend Gladys, aka old colonel, thinks it's wrong of me to QUOTE you. She thinks your legacy here should be something other than your actual words. But it was you who said this:
Dimensions of character---and culpability---are implied in the words we use.
Maybe you should tell Gladys how proud you are to carry the anti-gunners ball for them.
