Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So in all honesty you don’t need and shouldn’t have a gun for protection that has a capacity of ten or more rounds. What you “need” is a gun that can, in a single round, hit an area the size of a basketball. The most effective household defense weapon is a shotgun and most hold 5-6 rounds. The likelihood you, in a panic and fearing for your life, are going to accurately hit and incapacitate your target with a pistol is low.

Shotguns are difficult to maneuver inside houses, have high recoil, and it's easy to lose control if someone grabs the muzzle away from you.

Shotguns also have a very narrow spread in close quarters, making your "basketball" spread nonsensical.

It's obvious you haven't thought about this, or you only listen to Joe Biden stump speeches for your self defense advice.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And if it isn't guns that's causing it, what is it? Why is the gun violence rate so astronomically high in the US compared to all other Western countries?

It's high in particular communities. But if one goes into more specifics about this, one is called a [ ]ist.
 
And you think suburban moms are so stupid that promising to allow criminals to keep their guns but disarming everyone else will satisfy them?

You don't think parents would feel safer if there were more armed guards at school to defend against madman criminals?


I’d be worried that the armed guard could go postal.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don’t see you making any point here.

How are we talking past each other?

The poster (and likes) love abortion because it allows them to have unprotected sex without a consequence of a child being born, even though someone loses a life in the process.

I don't know how you can defend that sentiment.


I'm not surprised though, a bunch of CEOs have come out in support of abortion because it allows their companies to not have to pay for maternity leave.
 
I'm always curious what the current conservative thinking on how to prevent mass shootings is, other than "this is the price for living in a free society with the 2nd amendment." Increased mental health care (the only time they seem to care about this issue)? Increased government surveillance to prevent domestic terrorism? What?

Well, the trajectory our our society over the past several decades has more or less been dictated by liberals. We were promised that it would lead to a more harmonious future, but look at the headlines. It's been a massive failure, and the increase in mass shootings is just one manifestation of the collapse of national unity.
 
How are we talking past each other?

The poster (and likes) love abortion because it allows them to have unprotected sex without a consequence of a child being born, even though someone loses a life in the process.

I don't know how you can defend that sentiment.


I'm not surprised though, a bunch of CEOs have come out in support of abortion because it allows their companies to not have to pay for maternity leave.


You just confirmed my point. You’re talking past each other. Your underlying belief is “abortion is murder” while their underlying belief is “abortion is not murder.” As long as you accept the former to be true and they accept the latter, the conversation is moot. So feel free to argue over the definition of murder and a person, etc. it’s pointless.
 
How are we talking past each other?

The poster (and likes) love abortion because it allows them to have unprotected sex without a consequence of a child being born, even though someone loses a life in the process.

I don't know how you can defend that sentiment.


I'm not surprised though, a bunch of CEOs have come out in support of abortion because it allows their companies to not have to pay for maternity leave.


I’m tempted to say you can’t be such an idiot as to actually believe the poster and the people who like that post love murdering babies, but I won’t fall into that temptation because I very well could be wrong.
 
And you think suburban moms are so stupid that promising to allow criminals to keep their guns but disarming everyone else will satisfy them?

You don't think parents would feel safer if there were more armed guards at school to defend against madman criminals?

That’s the question. Good guys with guns versus bad guys, or fewer guns overall?

I don’t know which strategy is right, but the bigger question in a democracy is which one do the people want?
 
So in all honesty you don’t need and shouldn’t have a gun for protection that has a capacity of ten or more rounds. What you “need” is a gun that can, in a single round, hit an area the size of a basketball. The most effective household defense weapon is a shotgun and most hold 5-6 rounds. The likelihood you, in a panic and fearing for your life, are going to accurately hit and incapacitate your target with a pistol is low.

Huh. If 10 rounds is always enough, why do all magazine capacity restrictions exempt the police? Surely they, being highly trained professionals, should need fewer rounds to incapacitate an attacker threatening their lives.

Or maybe the simple truth is that 10 rounds is frequently not enough.

Also, shotguns do not make basketball size patterns at self-defense ranges in homes. More like a couple inches. They need to be aimed just as carefully as any other gun. Also, their high recoil makes them somewhat harder to control. The pump mechanism for firing a second round is vulnerable to short stroking and failure, especially under stress. I would never advise someone to use a shotgun for self defense in a home.

This is a common problem with these discussions. People who have no knowledge of firearms or their application nevertheless have strong opinions on the matter and feel compelled to give advice.

Case in point: Joe Biden's sage advice to "fire the shotgun through the door."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
F3DB15B7-D3C8-4D4A-A39E-7CA5E78FFE35.png

I know everyone has seen this graph but anyone looks at this and with a straight face can tell me there’s no problem they’re being naive. Even places with similar demographics to the US (The UK and France) have drastically lower rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
View attachment 279915
I know everyone has seen this graph but anyone looks at this and with a straight face can tell me there’s no problem they’re being naive. Even places with similar demographics to the US (The UK and France) have drastically lower rates.
And it’s not like those other countries don’t have crime or some crazy death rate because people can’t protect themselves. There’s an overall problem in the US
 
And you think suburban moms are so stupid that promising to allow criminals to keep their guns but disarming everyone else will satisfy them?

You don't think parents would feel safer if there were more armed guards at school to defend against madman criminals?
Same rationale....my kid doesn’t need to be in a school where an armed security guard is needed
 
That’s the question. Good guys with guns versus bad guys, or fewer guns overall?

I don’t know which strategy is right, but the bigger question in a democracy is which one do the people want?

I'd rather have as many good people with guns as possible if we live in a world where bad guys have guns and they're not afraid to use them against innocents.

Genie is out of the bottle (1776), can't put him back in.
 
I’m tempted to say you can’t be such an idiot as to actually believe the poster and the people who like that post love murdering babies, but I won’t fall into that temptation because I very well could be wrong.
Democrats railing against guns and Republicans railing against abortion are two faces of the same coin.

Every time they open their mouths about the issue they harm their parties' election odds. Both sides lack the wisdom to STFU about it.

This is a thread about Trump's re election odds. I didn't mean to derail it into a gun control debate, just wanted to point out how massive a boost Beto gave him yesterday. That's a sound bite for the ages. I mean, we've been getting OK mileage out of Feinstein's "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" slip in 1995 ... but man, Beto's not even trying to pretend any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How are we talking past each other?

The poster (and likes) love abortion because it allows them to have unprotected sex without a consequence of a child being born, even though someone loses a life in the process.

I don't know how you can defend that sentiment.


I'm not surprised though, a bunch of CEOs have come out in support of abortion because it allows their companies to not have to pay for maternity leave.

Actually, birth control pills allow me and others to have unprotected sex without a child being born. Best invention ever.

Your delusions about people banging and then scheduling an abortion appointment 3 months later are not backed by reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
How are we talking past each other?

The poster (and likes) love abortion because it allows them to have unprotected sex without a consequence of a child being born, even though someone loses a life in the process.

I don't know how you can defend that sentiment.
It's simple. A pre viable fetus isn't a person.

The whole "life at conception" idea is an arbitrary artifact of (one) religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
When I look at the NRA I don't see you

The NRA does a lot of things. They've received a lot of well-deserved criticism lately (there's a real problem with waste and abuse by the Board). I'm disgusted with the way they've neglected their competitive shooting division. As a sanctioning body they're really doing poorly lately. Much of their messaging has been tone deaf and not real helpful. Wayne LA Pierre is a tool.

But. They're an effective lobby against stupid gun control measures I oppose. So I give them money.


The NRA is about as representative of its members as Hitler was of Germany.

As I said earlier, this kind bizarrely skewed and hyperbolic conception of what the NRA is and what it does, is just wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm always curious what the current conservative thinking on how to prevent mass shootings is, other than "this is the price for living in a free society with the 2nd amendment." Increased mental health care (the only time they seem to care about this issue)? Increased government surveillance to prevent domestic terrorism? What?
The answer is yes, rare random violence is the price of living in this free society at this time.

The way to reduce random violence is not to reduce freedom.

The way to reduce violence starts and ends with economic opportunity and safety for all. Uneducated and hopeless people make poor choices. They lash out. Poor people are uneducated and hopeless.

So, the answer is economic. It'll take a generation to fix AFTER we enact policies to move that way. Growing wealth inequality is a problem. Lack of health care must not bankrupt families. Wages need to rise faster. Generally I think Democrats have better ideas in this direction. It's a complex hard problem.

Gun control in the USA would be about as effective as a wall on the southern border in terms of ending violent deaths and suicides (which are the large majority of "gun" deaths).

Stupid ideas are usually simple and easy. They appeal to people who want simple easy answers.

Consider this: as I mentioned a moment ago, most "gun" deaths are suicides. Gun control Democrats think taking away guns will stop suicides. Republicans think mental health care will stop suicides.

Why don't we fix the social and economic issues that make people think killing themselves is their best option? Oh. That's hard. And the idea doesn't enrage anyone in the primary-voting base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Shotguns are difficult to maneuver inside houses, have high recoil, and it's easy to lose control if someone grabs the muzzle away from you.

Shotguns also have a very narrow spread in close quarters, making your "basketball" spread nonsensical.

It's obvious you haven't thought about this, or you only listen to Joe Biden stump speeches for your self defense advice.

You don’t have any clue what you are talking about. You don’t shoot do you?

For most people, if you use the right shot and choke then a shotgun is ideal for home defense. An open cyclinder choke on a short barrel will give you about a softball size load of pellets at 5 yards depending on your shot size and it is unlikely to penetrate a wall and kill your sleeping kid. At ten yards, 7 birdshot will give you a pattern larger than a basketball. If you go with a bigger shot size, say 0, you will have a smaller shot pattern at roughly softball to melon size at 5-10 yards and larger still at 20 yards but with a large wound area and more likely to kill your target. Compare this to an AR15 which will incapacitate your target if you can aim and hit it in the proper location, but that bullet has a high likelihood of going through your target and through the wall and then killing your sleeping kid. You talk about recoil, ever shot a 40 or 45 caliber handgun? There is enough kick that without a lot of experience your next shot won’t be anywhere near target. Throw in someone coming after you and you are unlikely to hit to incapacitate. A 20G semiauto shotgun with the proper stock doesn’t have that much recoil.
 
You don’t have any clue what you are talking about. You don’t shoot do you?

For most people, if you use the right shot and choke then a shotgun is ideal for home defense. An open cyclinder choke on a short barrel will give you about a softball size load of pellets at 5 yards depending on your shot size and it is unlikely to penetrate a wall and kill your sleeping kid. At ten yards, 7 birdshot will give you a pattern larger than a basketball. If you go with a bigger shot size, say 0, you will have a smaller shot pattern at roughly softball to melon size at 5-10 yards and larger still at 20 yards but with a large wound area and more likely to kill your target. Compare this to an AR15 which will incapacitate your target if you can aim and hit it in the proper location, but that bullet has a high likelihood of going through your target and through the wall and then killing your sleeping kid. You talk about recoil, ever shot a 40 or 45 caliber handgun? There is enough kick that without a lot of experience your next shot won’t be anywhere near target. Throw in someone coming after you and you are unlikely to hit to incapacitate. A 20G semiauto shotgun with the proper stock doesn’t have that much recoil.
Your points are well taken but a 20 g birdshot load is about one step removed from harsh language. :)

Overpenetration through walls is a high risk with heavy/slow bullets (handguns). It's less an issue with fast light bullets, notably those fired from an AR, which tend to fragment upon first contact with anything.

There's an unavoidable risk that any round suitable for stopping an attacker is a danger to anything that lies behind that attacker. Know your target and what lies beyond it, or don't fire.
 
Your points are well taken but a 20 g birdshot load is about one step removed from harsh language. :)

Overpenetration through walls is a high risk with heavy/slow bullets (handguns). It's less an issue with fast light bullets, notably those fired from an AR, which tend to fragment upon first contact with anything.

There's an unavoidable risk that any round suitable for stopping an attacker is a danger to anything that lies behind that attacker. Know your target and what lies beyond it, or don't fire.

I wish I could find the video right now but it was a comparison at 5 yards and 5 yards through a dummy using #4, 00, and .223. The .223 went through the equivalent of five bedroom walls and kept going on roughly the same trajectory. The 00 went through two and penetrate the 3rd. Makes you think when you have kids around the house.
 
I wish I could find the video right now but it was a comparison at 5 yards and 5 yards through a dummy using #4, 00, and .223. The .223 went through the equivalent of five bedroom walls and kept going on roughly the same trajectory. The 00 went through two and penetrate the 3rd. Makes you think when you have kids around the house.
I'm going to need a source on that as a quick Google search disagrees on the penetrating power of the .223.
 
It's simple. A pre viable fetus isn't a person.

The whole "life at conception" idea is an arbitrary artifact of (one) religion.
Any arguments about fetuses and personhood will fail.
Abortion is an ethical dilemma and neither side will win with the strength of their arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A good way to judge how a person really feels about the second amendment is to ask how they feel about a black man owning a gun. I get the impression that a lot of NRA members think that gun rights only apply to white people. It was the Black Panthers who brought the issue to the forefront, after all.

Really. I bet you are way off base. I bet most NRA members would fully support any man or women owning a gun no matter their race.

The best examples why the 2nd amendment is so important come from the times only several decades ago when black men had to protect their communities in the south, not from the government, but from the local community and local police force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The answer is yes, rare random violence is the price of living in this free society at this time.

The way to reduce random violence is not to reduce freedom.

The way to reduce violence starts and ends with economic opportunity and safety for all. Uneducated and hopeless people make poor choices. They lash out. Poor people are uneducated and hopeless.

So, the answer is economic. It'll take a generation to fix AFTER we enact policies to move that way. Growing wealth inequality is a problem. Lack of health care must not bankrupt families. Wages need to rise faster. Generally I think Democrats have better ideas in this direction. It's a complex hard problem.

Gun control in the USA would be about as effective as a wall on the southern border in terms of ending violent deaths and suicides (which are the large majority of "gun" deaths).

Stupid ideas are usually simple and easy. They appeal to people who want simple easy answers.

Consider this: as I mentioned a moment ago, most "gun" deaths are suicides. Gun control Democrats think taking away guns will stop suicides. Republicans think mental health care will stop suicides.

Why don't we fix the social and economic issues that make people think killing themselves is their best option? Oh. That's hard. And the idea doesn't enrage anyone in the primary-voting base.


If you look carefully, recent shootings don’t support your thesis. There have been a lot of college students and otherwise middle class young men who have become ideologically radicalized doing the shootings. The Poway, Ca, synagogue shooter and mosque arsonist was a nursing student and the son of a high school physics teacher and lifeguard. Santa Barbara was a college student and son of a wealthy Hollywood movie and commercial director. Virginia Tech shooter was a college student. El Paso was a college student living with his family. Dayton and Gilroy were also a middle class kids. So was Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc, etc. Many times family and friends are “horrified and shocked” because the shooters came from unremarkable homes. They are mostly misguided young kids in a “free society” with a few older guys (Vegas, Virginia Beach, Pittsburgh) thrown in. Poverty is not really a unifying trait of the shooters. Many of the shooters had economic opportunity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's simple. A pre viable fetus isn't a person.

The whole "life at conception" idea is an arbitrary artifact of (one) religion.

The viability argument is one that doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. What’s viable? We’ve seen huge jumps in terms of fetal viability with our “terrible” medical care. So far as I’m aware, that’s around 22 weeks currently, but that baby still isn’t viable without any support and in fact no baby is “viable” w/o support until they’re several years old at the very least. The same is true for the flip side of age and disease. Viability becomes based on support, be it medical or personal or whatever. Are demented people viable? ESRD? Diabetics? Viability is a slippery slope IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You don’t have any clue what you are talking about. You don’t shoot do you?

For most people, if you use the right shot and choke then a shotgun is ideal for home defense. An open cyclinder choke on a short barrel will give you about a softball size load of pellets at 5 yards depending on your shot size and it is unlikely to penetrate a wall and kill your sleeping kid. At ten yards, 7 birdshot will give you a pattern larger than a basketball. If you go with a bigger shot size, say 0, you will have a smaller shot pattern at roughly softball to melon size at 5-10 yards and larger still at 20 yards but with a large wound area and more likely to kill your target. Compare this to an AR15 which will incapacitate your target if you can aim and hit it in the proper location, but that bullet has a high likelihood of going through your target and through the wall and then killing your sleeping kid. You talk about recoil, ever shot a 40 or 45 caliber handgun? There is enough kick that without a lot of experience your next shot won’t be anywhere near target. Throw in someone coming after you and you are unlikely to hit to incapacitate. A 20G semiauto shotgun with the proper stock doesn’t have that much recoil.

While I truthfully don’t remember shot patterns of the different chokes, it’s sort of amusing we’re talking about this in terms of yards. I have a pretty nice house but I’ll admit there aren’t many rooms I’d be making 7-10 yard shots in. I actually agree with the premise of a shotgun for home defense for all the reasons you stated, but in close quarters, the spread isn’t like shooting basketballs around the house.

There’s also an argument to be made that an armed intruder is going to be spraying bullets everywhere, wouldn’t you like the ability to shoot through that wall or piece of furniture he’s hiding behind?

At the end of the day though, self defense is only a component as to why the second amendment exists and isn’t the reason it’s in The Constitution.
 
Do any of you guys with guns also use a pit bull or Rottweiler for home defense/crime deterrent? Cameras? Security doors and gates? Just curious what other measures you use.

Also would you consider giving up your guns if we had safer society like Singapore or Japan?
 
Last edited:
You don’t have any clue what you are talking about. You don’t shoot do you?

For most people, if you use the right shot and choke then a shotgun is ideal for home defense. An open cyclinder choke on a short barrel will give you about a softball size load of pellets at 5 yards depending on your shot size and it is unlikely to penetrate a wall and kill your sleeping kid. At ten yards, 7 birdshot will give you a pattern larger than a basketball. If you go with a bigger shot size, say 0, you will have a smaller shot pattern at roughly softball to melon size at 5-10 yards and larger still at 20 yards but with a large wound area and more likely to kill your target. Compare this to an AR15 which will incapacitate your target if you can aim and hit it in the proper location, but that bullet has a high likelihood of going through your target and through the wall and then killing your sleeping kid. You talk about recoil, ever shot a 40 or 45 caliber handgun? There is enough kick that without a lot of experience your next shot won’t be anywhere near target. Throw in someone coming after you and you are unlikely to hit to incapacitate. A 20G semiauto shotgun with the proper stock doesn’t have that much recoil.

My house isn't a football field, there are lots of obstructions, walls, doorways, and turns.

I do shoot a variety of calibers, and 45 is one of the easiest.

bb3d6c05797cba36dcb1eae3a1159277.jpg


15 rounds of 45, extra magazine, tac light, suppressor, RDS. Great for home defense.


It all comes down to personal preference, and hence why I don't want a ***** like Bayto telling me how I'm supposed to defend my family.

You keep your shotgun for your fieldhouse, I'll keep my handgun.
 
Do any of you guys with guns also use a pit bull or Rottweiler for home defense/crime deterrent? Cameras? Security doors and gates? Just curious what other measures you use.

Also would you consider giving up your guns if we had safer society like Singapore or Japan?

Dogs are terrible for self defense, except for alarm.

Cameras don't help with self defense, but if setup with alert boxes, then it might help with alarm, but also too many false positives. They're better for post-crime investigation and deterrence.

Since we don't live in Singapore or Japan, and never will, it's useless to theorize. We live in a crime filled broken society.

The country is dealing with opioids, drug traffickers, gangs like MS-13, kids from single mothers, and social networks that do everything but help grow people together.
 
Really. I bet you are way off base. I bet most NRA members would fully support any man or women owning a gun no matter their race.

The best examples why the 2nd amendment is so important come from the times only several decades ago when black men had to protect their communities in the south, not from the government, but from the local community and local police force.

Or better yet, a Muslim citizen. I just don’t think your average NRA member would just shrug his shoulders at the Muslim guy buying a gun to protect his family.

But yes, those very reasons are why I would never support banning guns. On the other hand, a black guy buying a gun to protect himself or his family from aggressive police forces is just going to end up getting shot by those police forces anyway. So, I guess there already is a deterrent against black men buying guns whether they have a right to or not.
 
Or better yet, a Muslim citizen. I just don’t think your average NRA member would just shrug his shoulders at the Muslim guy buying a gun to protect his family.

Are you projecting? Certainly seems like it.
 
I own a lot of firearms. AR15, handguns, shotgun, etc. This is all I keep ready by my bed in case of an emergency. I have this simple gun, several good flashlights and a security system for the home which works well. While I support the second amendment I am a moderate when it comes to gun laws and reasonable background check requirements even for private sales.

My firearms are all in a secure location in my home except this one below:


1568467122152.png


I still don't like the notion that Warren and Beto will take my AR15 away. But, even then I wouldn't leave the USA over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do any of you guys with guns also use a pit bull or Rottweiler for home defense/crime deterrent? Cameras? Security doors and gates? Just curious what other measures you use.

Also would you consider giving up your guns if we had safer society like Singapore or Japan?

We have two rottweilers and two obnoxious bark-at-all-people crocker spaniels. We added cameras after one of our cars was broken into while in our driveway.

These are deterrents though.

And no, I wouldn't give up my 2nd Amendment rights if I lived in a "safer" country. The primary purpose of an armed populace is security from government. And no, I'm not talking about facing down tanks and attack helicopters Red Dawn Wolverine style. I mean when the thugs come in the middle of the night to intimidate or beat you, or when the secret police start rounding up your pals who are the protest organizers. You know, like happens frequently in less free countries.

We've got people on this very forum who assure us that Trump is leading us down the path to a fascist dystopia. This country has faced existential internal and external threats before, notably a civil war and two world wars in the last 150 years. And yet these same people want the police and military to be the only ones with guns. Once the people are disarmed, they're apparently sure that the next 150 years will bring no such crises. It's foolish.

be9.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
We have two rottweilers and two obnoxious bark-at-all-people crocker spaniels. We added cameras after one of our cars was broken into while in our driveway.

These are deterrents though.

And no, I wouldn't give up my 2nd Amendment rights if I lived in a "safer" country. The primary purpose of an armed populace is security from government. And no, I'm not talking about facing down tanks and attack helicopters Red Dawn Wolverine style. I mean when the thugs come in the middle of the night to intimidate or beat you, or when the secret police start rounding up your pals who are the protest organizers. You know, like happens frequently in less free countries.

We've got people on this very forum who assure us that Trump is leading us down the path to a fascist dystopia. This country has faced existential internal and external threats before, notably a civil war and two world wars in the last 150 years. And yet these same people want the police and military to be the only ones with guns. Once the people are disarmed, they're apparently sure that the next 150 years will bring no such crises. It's foolish.

be9.jpg


 
Or better yet, a Muslim citizen. I just don’t think your average NRA member would just shrug his shoulders at the Muslim guy buying a gun to protect his family.

The only reason you think that is because you've bought the anti-NRA propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

You'd be wrong. I know MANY members of the NRA. It's a prerequisite for membership at two ranges I belong to. I personally know literally dozens of people (in a state where trucks with confederate flags aren't uncommon) who are NRA members. Those who are people of color and yes, at least one Muslim, are welcomed.

But yes, those very reasons are why I would never support banning guns. On the other hand, a black guy buying a gun to protect himself or his family from aggressive police forces is just going to end up getting shot by those police forces anyway. So, I guess there already is a deterrent against black men buying guns whether they have a right to or not.
This is a problem with the police, not the NRA. I totally get why black men are hesitant to exercise their rights concerning gun ownership and especially carry.

The NRA supports groups like the Pink Pistols. Look them up.

Your notion that the NRA and its members are systematically racist bigots is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The only reason you think that is because you've bought the anti-NRA propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

You'd be wrong. I know MANY members of the NRA. It's a prerequisite for membership at two ranges I belong to. I personally know literally dozens of people (in a state where trucks with confederate flags aren't uncommon) who are NRA members. Those who are people of color and yes, at least one Muslim, are welcomed.


This is a problem with the police, not the NRA. I totally get why black men are hesitant to exercise their rights concerning gun ownership and especially carry.

The NRA supports groups like the Pink Pistols. Look them up.

Your notion that the NRA and its members are systematically racist bigots is wrong.

Well then maybe they need a better marketing team. The only time I see NRA stickers on cars (usually oversized pickups) is when they are placed next to Confederate flags (and I’m in the North) or Punisher emblems (a celebration of vigilante justice).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Beto's going to take away AR15s and AK47s from all USA Citizens:



I'm pretty sure Warren and Sanders will place an Executive Order banning the sale of all AR15s and AK47s shortly after taking the Oath of Office.
 

Non-gun owner’s are not going to the NRA website. They see the gun owners, or the ones who flaunt it, in their communities and many of them act like ignorant jackasses. That’s the marketing problem that is hard to fix.

I bet if you polled all NRA members about how they would react to a Muslim citizen buying a gun, you would see a bit of wavering on that staunch 2nd amendment support. I could be wrong, and I would love it if I was wrong, but I don’t think I am wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Non-gun owner’s are not going to the NRA website. They see the gun owners, or the ones who flaunt it, in their communities and many of them act like ignorant jackasses. That’s the marketing problem that is hard to fix.

I bet if you polled all NRA members about how they would react to a Muslim citizen buying a gun, you would see a bit of wavering on that staunch 2nd amendment support. I could be wrong, and I would love it if I was wrong, but I don’t think I am wrong.

I think you are wrong. I know a lot of Muslim Physicians from many countries. They own guns and fly planes. They have their own views on different issues and rarely agree on everything themselves. Muslims can and do buy guns every single day in the USA. Last time I checked the Bill of Rights was valid for every person living in the USA regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top