NRA Official: People Arming In Case Politicians 'Attack'

Reader Comments
Back to blog

We are well past the point where things can be fixed with an election. Who are we going to get to replace them that would be any better? So you would be well to be prepared for whatever comes next...unless you don't mind speaking chinese!

RLA of WV 6:34PM November 27, 2009

Yes, let's make sure to not upset the people who actually believe the government is going to disarm them completely. First of all, anyone who understands lobbying would know the NRA would never let that happen. Second, politicians who don't represent their constituents get voted out of office - and most politicians would prefer keeping their jobs, if for no other reason than the great healthcare plans.
I hear the same ignorant people talking about Democrats wanting to ban God. Really? America is roughly 85% Christian, last I checked. And we're still a voting democracy - right? So when a majority of people decide that religion should not be forced on public school children, it has nothing to do with banning God from life. Same false arguments are made about guns. Wanting to protect the rest of us from crazy alarmist paranoid whackos, and maybe also some of those "inner city" people someone else not-so-subtly mentioned, has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. American citizens do not have absolute rights to do whatever they want in a vacuum. Everything must be balanced against the wishes of our neighbors and peers - and in our American democracy, every decision itself is the balanced result of a vote (either direct, or of our representation whom we expect to vote in support of our core interests and not the fringe)...
With every word, these people confirm they don't have any idea what they're actually talking about - and there's at least one political party today that is more than happy to exploit this ignorance. Shame on them both.

Thomas of CA 12:58AM November 24, 2009

Apparently you have never tried to have a discussion with a "gun nut". Bill from Mo is typical of this ilk. Just mention the 2nd Amendment and they jump to the "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers" argument. These people do nothing to further the discussion. It's like most hot button topics of today. You have the two extremes - Take Away All Guns and No Restrictions. We should gather all of those people in a large corral and let them fight it out while the rest of us figure out how to design, enact, and enforce fair and reasonable laws.

grundy of IL 8:03AM November 12, 2009

Bill Gedges of MO
My comments may have been silly, but yours are incoherent. I'm sure there is an argument for something in there somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is.
What does your comment have to do with what I said? Who cares who has access to your "collection" and who cares what's in it? Who said anything about stealing anyone's guns? What in the world are you talking about? Did you accidently reply to the wrong post?

JaJa of TX 4:56PM November 10, 2009

JaJa of TX
I don't buy guns now for defense. I have plenty. I had enough before they outlawed assualt rifles. I did buy some and they have incresed in value.
Your silly remarks makes a person like me laugh. My guns are secured and next to impossible to steal.
So criminals who misuse guns, not Republicans ha ha, will not have access to my collection which includes ammo and reloading equipment.
People who make fun of Constitution I stay away from. I am a law abiding citizen and stay away from temptation to change that.

Bill Gedges of MO 8:10PM November 05, 2009

If you're a democrat, consider this...
When guns are outlawed, only Republicans will have guns. Is that really what we want?
If you're Republican and take a "strict constructionist" view of the constitution, consider this: You have the right to "bear arms". What will you do with a bear arm? If you have the whole skin, it will keep you warm, but what can you do with just an arm? Maybe a back scratcher?

JaJa of TX 3:19PM November 05, 2009

Bill wrote: "when you walk around some rough city neighborhoods, you better have a healthy fear of some random 14-18 year old who's only goal in life is to prove he's meaner and badder than everyone else - and has a gun."
So your contention is that guns are bad and need to be controled.
Let's stroll down your path: Guns kill therefore eliminate guns. But wait. Criminals don't obey laws. Guess what, the 14-18 year old criminals are still going to have guns no matter how stingent gun laws are. But, for sake of argument, lets assume criminals give-up their guns as well. Now they carry switch blades and knives. But wait, now we have to have stringent knife laws. So let's remove all knives from society because knives kill. Assumming criminals are law abiding and stop using knives. Now they start using baseball bats, wrentches, clubs, axes, etc. Hopefully you see the fallacy of your argument.
I agree that inner city folks have a lesser need for guns than country folk. But the one need they have is their right to personal protection. They needs guns as a deterrent.
Today cities across America are reducing the size of their police force and you propose the removal of a major protection for people and deterrent for criminals?! Not only are law abiding citizens left unprotected by those sworn to serve and protect, but they are defenseless because their guns have been confiscated.
I will concede that in the west, we still use guns to hunt, to butcher cattle, kill rodents, and protect property (coyote, wolf/bear/mountain lion, poachers attacking livestock). But we tend to use rifles, shotguns, and archery more than we use handguns.
But here's my point. Inner cities do have violence and guns are often used to committ violence. Laws making guns illegal in inner cities are extrapolated by extreme liberals and applied to ALL guns in ALL parts of the country.
But the problem is not guns. Guns are a tool used to committ crimes; like a pair of pliers are used to fix a car.
Rather, the problem is the owners of the index fingers pulling the triggers. The problem is society. The problem is broken, fractured homes. The problem is youth with to much time on their hands. The problem is parents who are not involved in the lives of their children. The problem is drug use and abuse. The problem is kids who've never set foot in church and fail to develope a set of morals, ethics, integrity, discipline, or a spiritual component in their life.
Even then, these measures are nurturing measures and violence with guns will still happen because some people are just plain evil. They will still commit crimes and violence using guns, knives, bats, etc.
The solution is not to defang society. That solution is a lazy solution. The solution is to confront the problems I listed. That's your solution to gun violence. The question is are you to wrapped-up in your own, comfy, little world to care?

david of ID 2:13PM November 05, 2009

Where can one find such a wonderful sounding place, Mr. Smith of Utah? For I most certainly want to take the family there for some holiday shopping!

Shuffleshuflle of TX 1:37PM November 05, 2009

What's important is what a person stands for on various issues (gun and non-gun) nowadays, not what they stood for five or ten years ago over even one year ago.

James of MD 7:29AM November 05, 2009

Since the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the total-gun-ban advocates have gone the way of the dinosaurs, although there are still supporters of more moderate versions of gun control.
Nevertheless, certain pro-gun Americans act as though the total-gun-ban advocates are still alive and well.

James of MD 7:26AM November 05, 2009