NRA to Congressional Gun Controllers: The American People Will Never Give Up Their Guns
On Friday, the NRA posted a message for gun controllers in Congress and elsewhere saying, “We the People will never give up our guns.”
They posted the message:
WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP OUR FIREARMS.Moreover, Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are all running for re-election with recent gun control support as part of their political history. Some of these Sens., like Nelson, for instance, are for bans on entire categories of firearms.
The NRA’s message to these Democrats and their surrogates in Hollywood and the establishment media is clear: “We the People will never give up our firearms.”
The tweet from the NRA comes as Democrats double down on gun control as a central message for the fast-approaching midterms.
FMCDH…
Source: NRA to Congressional Gun Controllers: The American People Will Never Give Up Their Guns
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Politics
Well, if that’s the hill the want to die on (figuratively speaking), who am I to stop them?
Gun control arguments by the Left are so nonsensical and absurd…I for one will never give up my weapons. Never!!
And yet they’re making inroads.
Yes, we have more guns than ever in this country, over one per person, but the percentage of households with guns has declined from over 50 percent in 1977 to under 30 percent today.
They don’t have to ban them outright, just make the mere ownership of one so socially unacceptable people, with rare exception, stop buying them.
That depends on the study one reads. There are other studies that show gun ownership at 45-50%, especially with the wave of new gun owners buying primarily handguns for self defense. The NSSF, who gets data directly from gun dealers, stated that all dealers reported an increase in sales through the end of 2017. The majority of new gun sales were to first time buyers, primarily women. The anti-gun folks would love for us to believe that the majority of gun owners are fat old white men who are slowly dying off.
Correct.
I may be a fat old white man, but I ain’t dying off.
It also depends heavily on the respondents telling the truth.
Half of that is a demographic shift. In 1970 27% of the population was rural. Today it’s 18%. It is harder to be a legal urban gunowner today than it was in the 70’s. The other 10% I’d chalk up to public school “socialization”. I would also suspect that many rural people do not answer that question honestly. ;^)
A DC TV station did a “man in the street” interview thing asking random residents if they had a gun. Most said yes. Then they asked if it was registered (mandatory at the time). Nearly everyone mumbled; one guy actually said “No.”
Now about Baltimore… The source data are bogus.
Sparks, as LIright47 says:
“Gun control arguments by the Left are so nonsensical and absurd…”
To ol’ Poe’s way of thinking, that applies to their polls and studies as well.
Try, “The percentage of people willing to tell some random stranger on the other end of a phone line that they have a gun in the house”, has declined. It’s more accurate.
You might also want to take a look at NRA memberships. If the number of households owning guns has decreased, the number of NRA mamberships should have decreased too… but it hasn’t, not by a big margin.
What Dave said. Those ‘studies’ quoted by the left rely on the honesty of the person being polled. In the politically charged atmosphere today, not many gun owners would be willing to tell a total stranger that they own a gun or guns.
Therein lies the truth – I’m sure that there’s a whole lot of folks that do like me and refuse to answer any surveys. Since NRA membership as well as the two other similar groups all show an increase in membership, you have to grin at their numbers.
In my group of conservative, christian, patriotic people…we will NEVER give them up! screw the socially unacceptable crap…those snowflakes are “unacceptable” to me!
I don’t know if anybody I know is a gun owner, but I support their right to keep them, or not. Common sense suggests that at least some of the folks I know ARE gun owners, but it isn’t the primary topic of conversation among us.
If what the media reports is accurate (cough, cough), it sounds from here like lefties discuss guns waaaaay more than do people on the right. It’s almost as if they have an unhealthy obsession with them.
They have an unhealthy obsession with a lot of things. Guns, new taxes, genitals…
Guns, new taxes OTHER PEOPLE’s genitals…
Fixed it for ya, Mason.
Welp, it’s a good thing that I don’t have anymore guns. Ever since I lost them in that boating accident in the Mojave Desert, teh PSTD has caused me not to leave the house and buy any more.
California can be such a treacherous place, so I’m told.
So, bean counters think that only 30 % of the population now have guns? That’s enough, have any idea how much fire power that is lol….and thats only the ones that admit it, the others add up to another 30% imho 😉
They continue their efforts to change a right into a privilege. They deny this, but their actions are the poison fruit by which one may accurately discern the nature of the tree.
The Left, in many ways, resembles an abusive spouse. Any sign of resistance or fight to the Left is a betrayal, a violation of the natural order. Many so called republicans have become the abuse-tolerant spouse, willing to lick boot in exchange for moderation of kicks, and shockingly quick to say “but we must be bipartisan! (Because they love us!)”
Roe v Wade was not the reason for the “by any means” opposition to Kavanaugh. What motivated the monsterous outrage was his rather blatant recognition in prior judicial writings, that the 2nd Amendment actually means an individual -right- to keep and bear arms, with all that implies for the would-be machinations of the Left.
The next “Heller” case to reach SCOTUS may result in a Yuuuuuuge! ruling.
One more Trump pick, assuming no stealth lefties, and the Left is done with bench-legislation for a generation. Some on the Left are already calling for either abolishing or “packing” SCOTUS.
The limousine-commie bitch running in NYC has been harping about packing the Court FDR-style. The dumbass harpy has also declared that she can’t wait to be “inaugurated”—which congressional representatives aren’t—and “sign bills into law”—as opposed to voting for or against their passage. She also thinks she can make vast amounts of money magically appear from thin air. She’s a self-proclaimed socialist with a carefully-rehearsed “po’ black child” story about growing up with no money in the Puerto Rican Bronx, though she actually grew up rich in an upscale community outside NYC.
Anybody who votes for the idiotic bitch deserves what they get.
It’s not just her. There are many on the left now talking about court packing as the preferred tactic.
If they try, expect a constitutional amendment to soon follow. Actually surprised after FDR’s stunt it wasn’t done then. Of course Hitler and Hirohito probably distracted a few folks at the time.
In part perhaps. The Dems are desperately trying to prevent a Conservative SCOTUS that views jurisprudence through the prism of the Constitution, and not the latest liberal cause du jour. Need an example? Gay Wedding Ban in California’s Proposition 8- passed by majority vote but ruled unconstitutional by a liberal Federal judge. I have yet to see where marriage is included in the Constitution, but that’s the point. The Dems can only legislate from the bench, and this removes that power from them and they are frantic. Look at the depths they mired themselves in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
So when does the new court review Peruta vs San Diego?
Oh, gee whiz, you gun nutz are so pathetic. Someone says ‘guns are naughty and you shouldn’t have them’ and you go into spasms over it.
I don’t think even being offered a puppy as a substitute would make you happy.
Nice hangfire video Ex, Youtube is loaded (no pun intended) with all kinds of firearm misuse and accidents along with Military accidents and weapon malfunctions.
Usually when I see someone with a kerf down the frontal lobe I think yup, chain saw.
Used to see a lot of them before chain brakes were required.
This guy should go with that.
What are the odds of a misfire followed by a hangfire? Oh, and video capture conveniently at hand. Staged…
Shooting bottles with a shotgun at five feet? Must be going for expert marksman.
Shame he didn’t succeed in selecting himself out of the gene pool. He does demonstrate he is down with safety with that yellow vest.
Fear the Govt. that fears guns. I wonder how many of these A-Hole dem peeps own firearms or have armed security. Does anyone know if ms. feinstein still carries that .38 wheelgun concealed and if she still carries, did she upgrade to a semi auto with a mini chainsaw bayonet hooked up to it??????
Naw, after making brazillions of $$$s as a US Senator (and how exactly does that work?) she has armed minions to guard her.
As do most if not all the gun-grabbing legislators. “Laws for thee but not for me.”
I wonder if T45 surrendered his NYC carry permit?
Would you? why should he, he is the President and has been threatened many times, may the secret service blow the balls off any attackers ! imho
The Left has ensured that we will not give up our firearms. It’s as if they started a slew of fires immediately after Trump’s victory and then asked everyone to rid themselves of fire extinguishers. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Not only that, I recall a slew of libs that woke up the morning after the election with a sudden and terrible fear of the government. Lots of THEM became firearms enthusiasts all of a sudden like.
2 things I’m stuck on:
1.) Should the citizenry live in fear of the government or should the government live in fear of the citizenry?
2.) If the founders got it right, and governments come into being by the consent of the governed, then by what means is that consent revoked, when necessary?
Governments should fear the people.
Consent is never revoked. It is denied and trampled upon, but still exists.
Also found n the Declaration of Independence: “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”
It seems pretty clear that revocation of consent was/is an option. Again, by what means? Arm wrestle? Free throw contest? High score in Fortnite?
I strongly suspect that most, if not all, pending legal tests of the 2d Amendment by Blue states, municipalities and any other liberal organizations will die a quiet death. They now must rightly fear a Supreme Court ruling that establishes a rock solid, constitution-affirming precedent that can be used by lower courts across the land to firmly entrench the 2d Amendment even in Blue enclaves.
Now is the time for our side to raise legal challenges against liberal encroachment on the right to keep and bear arms. Let us hope that is what the NRA is planning. If so, I will be sending them money even though I live in a fairly strong 2d Amendment area. This is an issue with worldwide implications as it may slow the liberal globalization effort.
I wish the super-majority of states would re-write the 2nd Amendment to take ANY ambiguity out of it, and do it now.
There IS NO AMBIGUITY in it! You have been watching too many liberal news clowns! “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, what the hell ambiguity is there in that?
There isn’t and quit shouting. What GDC is referring to is the prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia.” That is the issue and always has been. But for that clause, no interpretation of the 2nd A wording would be needed. It would read as straightforwardly as some state constitutions regarding the right of individuals to possess firearms.
“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.” WV Const. See anything about militia in there? That’s how the US Constitution could have read, or something akin to that verbiage. When the WV law requiring a permit/license was challenged, the challenger won b/c the right was not qualified and requiring a license or permit is an impediment to exercising the constitutional right.
GDContractor’s wish list:
1.) Repeal the 17th Amendment.
2.) Affirm the 10th Amendment.
3.) Buck Feto.
If one were to kick o’rourke in crotch, would there be anything in there that could be hurt?
Just a theoretical question.
Seen this?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=241427933223826&id=392709260889929
If you don’t do Facebook, the YouTube version is here:
https://youtu.be/Wgv_aDrsOcg
Este vato O’Rourke no tiene huevos.
Yeh, his head! 😉
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Yes please.
And next person that gets into an argument with me about how the 17th and Popular Vote Amendments are; better, more fair, popular, more democratic, etc. IS GETTING PUNCHED IN THE F**KING THROAT!
Have you ever heard of the number of corrupt governors of the State of Illinois? Or Dan Madigan and how he OWNS the state legislature? Do you know why Rod Blagojevich is in jail, and who had that legislative seat when Obama started his prezzie campaign?
The popular vote may not be the best solution, but considering how corrupt politics is nowadays, I think that popular vote is the better solution. We can at least get rid of the bad eggs more easily.
Sure – mob rule. The loudest side wins, even if it’s by one fraudulent vote.
And I’d like to point out that the crooks in Illinois were ALL elected by popular vote, BTW.
Exactly. Before the 17th the senators were picked by the state legislature, and if you’re short of stupid and corrupt state legislators in your neck of the woods I’m sure Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Louisiana would be delighted to send some your way.
Since the courts have also decided that voting district maps that don’t favor Democrats are discriminatory, abolishing the 17th means a de facto permanent lock by the Democrats on the Senate.
Doesn’t work that way! The main bunches of liberal/communist nutcases are in the majority in the big cities, and you popular vote B.S. would only put THEIR people in!
The Second Amendment guarantees each and every American the right to self defense against any and all comers.
There are a few exceptions of course, like felons, d-rat’s but it is pretty clear what is says and how it works.
It doesn’t matter who you worship, what you believe or who you sleep with, we all have the right to self defense, period…
The 2nd Amendment can reasonably be interpreted more than one way–and has been by the Supreme Court. Insisting that there is only one correct way to interrupt it is merely to announce one’s preference for how it should be interpreted.
actually, the Heller case confirmed a right to self protection under the 2nd, it just did not go far enough in specifying whether that right was just in the home or everywhere.
There must either be a despot who dictates the laws or representatives of the citizenry who propose and vote on them. We will never have a direct democracy. It is impossible. In sone states, the voters have more power that those in other states through recall and referendum, for instance. We may not like the judgment exercised by our representatives at times but that’s the system and there remains none better. Despite annual polls showing Congress being held in contempt by an overwhelming majority of people, the people return their rascals to Congress again and again and again. Who is to blame for that? Still, as Trump showed, the system works, ever producing tremendous tension sufficiently and adequately to interrupt the one party, one world rule some would prefer.
In our Congressional district (CA’s 1st district) the Democrat candidate says “I grew up in a family that safely and responsibly used firearms, and I am a gun owner. I respect farmers, ranchers, and sports enthusiasts right to own firearms. Yet every American can agree that no one wants innocent lives taken at the when guns get into the wrong hands, and there are things we can do at a federal level to keep our kids safe at schools.” Soft pedaling has never been softer. (Her name is Audrey Denny and she has raised and spent more campaign money to date than the incumbent who has an NRA rating of A+. DOUGout
i have to agree with the NRA on this. we started a sale to clear out the vault of left over pistols, revolvers and rifles from 2011 – 2015. these were excess new guns and we had overestimated what we were going to be selling when NY got the (un)SAFE act. mostly they were 1911 type pistols and as well as some auto pistol caliber revolvers, and hunting rifles from 17 hornady to a really nice ruger in 30-06.
Most of the pistols/revolvers were gone by the COB on the 2nd day. what was left were pistols in the 2k range like Kimber, Sig, FN and HK most of the rifles were gone within 3 days.
out of everything , i have 2 .223 single shot pistols made by hinze that are too expensive for what they are and a Savage bolt action shotgun. in total i sold 121 pistols and 71 rifles mostly in 3 days thi is one county south of Albany, the heart of the revolution. If i had more guns i know i would have sold more…
Being NY’er, the governor forcing the (un)SAFE act on us in the middle of the night was enough to set our sights on changing how things in this state work. we have already started to target NYC and their idiotic pistol laws as well as law suite by lawsuit started to dismantle the SAFE Act in the courts.