Posted on 06/19/2016 10:01:16 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Last weekend Islamist extremist Omar Mateen slaughtered 49 innocents at a gay club in Orlando.
The Democrat party’s response to the massacre was to punish ordinary Americans and push for the immediate ban AR-15s, a gun that WAS NOT used by the terrorist during the attack.
The NRA released a video attacking the Democrat party on their refusal to face the threat of radical Islam.
NRA spokesman and former Navy SEAL Dom Raso went off:
Let me say something that every political hack pretending you know an AR-15 from a double-barrelled shotgun in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
...........
What a waste of money. Chop that diatribe into 10 separate commercials and actually inform people with facts and it might do some good.
**********************
You should be supervising the NRA. And while gun savvy folk might think they scored a good point by stating that an AR-15 was not involved, the general public could care less. It would be more persuasive to say — over and over again — something like, “Unrestricted immigration and soft-on-crime Democrats are the problem, not law abiding gun owners.”
The latest liberal thought process is that Muslims don’t kill any more people than non-muzzies in America, therefore they can’t be singled out.
Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace.
Then, this shouldn’t be offensive to them.
Pass a law banning “ALL” Muslims from “OWNING” or “PURCHASING GUNS.”
Make it a FELONY if anyone purchases a gun for Muslim.
Also, if a Muslim makes inflammatory remarks, report him and if necessary, deport him.
I don’t think anything will make a difference. Everyone is dug in and now it’s just wait and see. The fact that the Dems have a huge built in advantage doesn’t give me much hope.
Every time some idiot suggests that the second amendment has anything to do with hunting, you know right then this person is just plain ignorant. So why listen or read for one second more?
The second amendment is so we can protect ourselves (citizens) from our government. To reclaim it if necessary as in a revolution. Think 1776.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens.
The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists.
The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government’s instrument.
The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual’s right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says.
Well. I’ve got a shotgun at my front door that can blow a
big hole in anyone threatening me. - The crossbow; I have
a hard time pulling back the string on that thing. Fang can
do that and aim it at the same time.
When the grubermint says you do need an AR-15...you really need an M4.
Excellent.
I was qualified on a M4. I liked it. I prefer the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon but I don't think the Feds would let me own one.
I was also qualified on the Mk-19 but that would be out of the question.
Carlson isn’t very bright, imho.
The democrat party supports the terrorists who committed 9/11.
Thy have done everything to block victory against those that commit mass murderer even going so far as to put a muslim in the White House and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.
Bkmk
Very good!
:)
Pricy, but available, per the recent NRA Annual Meeting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.