Note to NRA: We are not a nation under violent siege(barf alert)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 17 apr 2015 | Francis Wilkinson

[rellimpank]

Last weekend’s National Rifle Association annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., had something for everyone. For mainstream NRA members, there were guns aplenty. For the gullible, there was a discussion of “no-go zones” U.S. neighborhoods living under the iron hijab of the Sharia, or Islamic law. For liberals and gun-regulation advocates, there was seemingly endless fodder for snark.

There may even have been an answer to a crucial question: Why now?

Why are gun-industry sales so robust, and the gun movement so militant, at this particular moment? Sure, the U.S. Supreme Court emboldened the movement with its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which for the first time established an unambiguous individual right to bear arms outside a well- regulated militia. But that hardly explains years of record gun sales or the wave of maximalist gun legislation sweeping the South and much of the West. Heller established a (regulated) right to arms. It didn’t require them in every corner bar.

[muir_redwoods]

This knucklehead is writing this crap from a city with a higher murder rate than Tikrit

[WayneS]

Note to NRA: We are not a nation under violent siege

Well, maybe not where I live, but Chicago? I beg to differ.

[Travis McGee]

[theBuckwheat]

Liberalism warps the mind to such an extent that truth itself becomes malleable and plastic so that The Agenda may be advanced by whatever means necessary.

Liberals are so enslaved by The Agenda that they cannot, for example, admit that an unborn child is a human, let alone worthy of protection. And in this case, the lives of the young urban black victims who are shot by the dozens in their own city are not worthy of protection either. Even #BlackLivesOnlyMatterOnlyWhenItAdvancesTheLiberalAgenda.

[MileHi]

Sure, the U.S. Supreme Court emboldened the movement with its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which for the first time established recognized an unambiguous individual right to bear arms outside a well- regulated militia.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Lighten up Francis.

[ThunderSleeps]

Tell that to the roughly 2.5 million people each year in the US who use a firearm defensively.

Yes, violent crime statistics are down and that is a very good thing. But if you are one of the unlucky ones who "beats the odds" and is on the receiving end of a violent act (or about to become a victim) you damn-sure want to have the means to protect yourself and your loved-ones, or even someone you haven't met yet. Any where, any time, not just at home and/or outside idiotic "gun free zones" that aren't really.

Even more important than that is the defense of an ideal, of an entire nation. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a basic right. The more liberal fascists try to take that right away or infringe upon it little by little - the more sure I am it is needed.

And no, for all you lib-lurkers out there reading this, the 2nd Amendment is not and never was about hunting. Dumba**es. Look at the rest of the Bill of Rights. The other 9 are all about freedom, personal liberty, limits on government. Do you really think the founding fathers thought "oh yeah, let's throw something in there about hunting too." {snort} The 2nd Amendment is about the people retaining the ability to enforce and guarantee their own liberties and safety - from government.

[Sirius Lee]

Why are gun-industry sales so robust, and the gun movement so militant, at this particular moment?

Because some people, enough people, have read history and know what happens after a republic has evolved and run its course as an empire, with all of the amassing of government power and bureaucracy that entails, and begins to direct that power inward towards its own people as it begins to run out of treasure.

[CyberAnt]

Well, if we’re not under siege, just what would you call it ..??

Why is it the left always wants to take away our freedoms by making us think we’re the ones who are wrong.

If people don’t want to have a gun or carry a gun; fine! That is your choice.

In Germany, the Jewish people did not have a choice - they were not allowed to have a weapon - and what happened to them ..?? They were rounded up and put in gas chambers.

AMERICA .. DON’T EVER FORGET THAT EVENT. If you allow nay-sayers to take away the weapons .. you’re going to be the next ones in the gas chambers.

[Envisioning]

This knucklehead is writing this crap from a city with a higher murder rate than Tikrit

+1

[SECURE AMERICA]

Okay this person writes for HuffPo Rolling Stone and Bloomberg.
Anyone think he is not going to be anti-2nd Amendment?

[tet68]

Why is it the left always wants to take away our freedoms by making us think we’re the ones who are wrong.

Because they can’t do it the other way right now.

[Triple]

Note to Francis:

And it won’t ever be under a successful siege on our watch!

[Starstruck]

Take away our 2nd Amendment rights and we would be a nation under violent siege.

[Maceman]

Nazi Germany was never under violent siege either.

[IronJack]

If you’re a conservative, your ideals most certainly are.

[IronJack]

Because some people, enough people, have read history and know what happens after a republic has evolved and run its course as an empire, with all of the amassing of government power and bureaucracy that entails, and begins to direct that power inward towards its own people as it begins to run out of treasure.

Bears repeating ... at the top of your lungs from every rooftop in this fair land.

[JewishRighter]

The Colonies were not under violent siege, either. Didn’t stop them.

[LeonardFMason]

LOL!!!!

LOOK AT THE “GOOD PEOPLE”!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

“ONLY BAD PEOPLE NEED GUNS!!!” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for the laugh. That cartoon is a classic.