The NRA is NOT a terrorist organization

The NRA is NOT a terrorist organization

Attached: NRA.jpg (400x400, 12K)

Other urls found in this thread:

congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text
m.mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.46bW2E8xs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you dont need gunz to protect yourself
the police will protect you

the police have no actual obligation to protect you
only to uphold "the law" as they see fit

this
criminals love it when people dont have guns
as if the police in america should be trusted with guns any more than the average citizen

certain people not being allowed to own guns, fine
legislation barring entire groups of normal people from owning guns is terrorism
the NRA is not a terrorist organization
they are regular people

I live in a "gun free" city and there is no shortage of criminals with guns exploiting people who are not allowed to carry them

having one "gun free" zone in a country of guns only makes us more vulnerable
this shit is so fucking dumb

do people actually believe they are?

Its not its nice to see another smart person around these parts

Noone is actually dumb enough to think the NRA is a terrorist organization.

What's worse is the media promising to make any sad sack of shit an instant celebrity if they do a mass shooting.
They'll get their own wikipedia page, their suicide note will be read to the world, their family will get interviews, all of their friends and classmates will get airtime.

No wonder why it looks so appealing to crazies.

True.

They are enablers

Attached: 28377587_1835273583170148_9109544558718353408_n.jpg (960x710, 46K)

WRONG

put more security guards in the schools
create some jobs
solve the damn problem
cease your faggotry

Attached: 1521340652857.jpg (620x558, 71K)

Trump is an idiot
turning teachers into security guards
instead of just creating some DAMN jobs for actual security guards

I am a NRA member, I don’t recall ever being encouraged to commit crimes or given firearms to break the law with.
Just how are they enabling me again?

They’re a militia, a completely worthless and unneeded militia.

How about jobs for security companies?
Maglock door systems, ballistic glass companies, saferoom companies, etc.

A militia is a state or federal entity.
The NRA is a private organization.

I think your IQ and general understanding / keeping up with a debate make you a prime NRA member.

You are enabling the terrorists Cletus

Sorry a PRIVATE militia, nitpicking douchebag.

Yes, they are.

Says the unarmed Internet commando.

Just how am I enabling terrorists?
Last time I checked, providing material support to a terrorist organization is a federal crime.
There’s a few million NRA members. I am fairly certain the government would have hopped to it if your claims were even a smidgen true.

Those are illegal. Plus the term militia implies organization and a chain of command. Bait harder.

Another stunning intellectual display from the typical NRA constituency.

Do you ever say anything that doesn't start with 'hurr durr'

Nothing wrong with being unarmed because outside of your head and delusions of “enemies everywhere” there is actually nobody out to “get me”

There is no such thing as “private” militias.
By their very existence, they are controlled by the federal or state government when called into active duty. This is what the militia act laws govern.
It’s like you’re stupid.
Are you from California by any chance?

I like that
Equip schools with security technologies
Have a security office in each school
Surely that is worthy of the people's tax dollars?

>against background checks
>doesn't want to prevent preventable deaths
>takes second amendment to mean "everyone can get any fucking gun they want and do whatever they want with it"
>not terrorists

The government will never cross the NRA or the military industrial complex. It's the backbone of the US economy.

And you do enable the terrorists. You give them the 'them' in their 'us vs them' dichotomy.

NRA doesn’t have a president or board of directors?

Im going to shoot your family. What are ya gonna do about it?

>there is no such thing as private militia

Ah I remember when I was naive..

you are creating vulnerable targets Fitzgerald
a personal favorite of every criminal

It would be worth it, because I live in tornado alley - those saferooms would serve double duty in our schools. A few years back we had a huge tornado come through, hit 2 schools - some 20 children were killed.

Why call him Cletus when all these shootings happen in liberal areas?

This is true.

A terrorist organization wouldn't be getting pwned by HS kids.

Yeah, was it just this morning? Because private militias are illegal and tend to be investigated quite vigorously by the feds.

You ain't going to shoot shit Rambo. Unless you fly to Singapore which is a first world country with exemplary levels of cleanliness and safety... and virtually no guns.

nobody is out to get "you" idiot
you are not important, if you haven't realized
but if a desperate person needs some cash,
or a psychopath just wants to increase his kill count
you'll be perfect for him

So exactly like you are doing now? The “Us vs Them” - so you’re a terrorist enabler too?
You should probably turn yourself in, don’t you think?

Just like any other company. By chain of command I meant ranks. Private, corporal, captain, so on? Also chain of command means there are (commands) to give. Like orders. NRA doesnt give orders to members. Whether you hate the second amendment or not you cant build a country on a set of principles and change them as you go. Blaming advocates of guns when its not NRA members going around killing people is stupid and a waste of time.

Like the feds would ever try and fuck with the nra...

Also private militias don’t go on tv and announce themselves idiot, fucking children these days.

Nope that is a bit of a stretch user.

Please stick to the NRA playbook. Every time you go off script you come across as a little simple

Must just be in your head or an american problem then, nothing like that ever happens here.

Everything you’re saying is just proving more and more the NRA isn’t what you’re claiming.
Have you given any thought to your argument at all?

Once again engaging in the “us vs them” ad hominem attacks.
You sure you don’t want to just turn yourself in for supporting terrorism?

>the only way to have a militia is to do it exactly like the military

Your idiot mind seems to be trying to apply rules where none apply.

Nice deflection

Us vs them isn't an ad hominem.

Do you know what an ad hominem is? Did you pluck that word out of a AronRa vs Ken Ham debate to make yourself seem smart? It didn't work. You aren't very smart.... but you are an NRA type.

So you really haven’t given your argument much thought, just kinda parroting what buzzfed and huff post has told you.
It’s ok, we were all young and stupid once, this is how you learn and grow if you’re wise enough to accept not everyone is going to think like you, and you cannot always be right so you should give people a chance and try to open your mind a bit - might find something you like.

The ad hominem was the “you come across as a little simple” attack.
The ad hominem you used just now was another intelligence insult without any proof of my intellectual capacity.
Are you projecting or just really have zero argument so you’re just resorting to classic leftist tactics? Can I expect to be called a Nazi too?

Absolutely correct, it is 100% an American problem
I wish our country was a peaceful candyland like yours, but it's not, and won't be anytime soon
Having guns available in one area and then illegal in the next town over is absolute retardation
its like having a big sign saying:
"DEFENSELESS VICTIMS: THIS WAY>"
Since this will probably never be an entirely gun free country, they should be fairly accessible to all regular citizens
Personally I am against the larger assault rifles, military grade weapons and such, but there's no reason a person shouldn't have access to a basic range of firearms in this country, there's too much chaos and being defenseless is a mistake

bump

ATTENTION FELLOW AMERIFAGS
This is the Dem's newest way of trying to destroy the 2nd amendment. Instead of going after the guns directly, they are trying to make them unaffordable for the general population.
congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

HR 5103 will enact the following if passed:
>Tax ALL legal firearm purchases at 20%
>ALL firearm importers, manufacturers, and dealers will be required to pay a $2000 tax stamp per place of business
>ALL firearm dealers will be required to pay 50% of the above tax YEARLY ^^^
>ALL firearm transfers will require a $500 tax stamp PER FIREARM (up from $200)
>ALL "AOW" firearm transfers will require a $100 tax stamp PER FIREARM (up from $5)
>Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include pistol version of rifles

Attached: 1518981560317.jpg (960x540, 69K)

Gonna be a real downer for Dems when it fails.

Sweeping vast majority of guns owned by law-abiding citizens are owned without incident. To say terrorists are being "enabled" is hyperbolic to the point of absurdity.

>military grade weapons
I'll have you know that my guns are much better than "military grade"

At this point I do lean in the other direction
Sure a person should be able to defend themselves, but there's gotta be a line somewhere
"Don't mess with user, he's got nuclear warheads in his truck"
You're defending from common criminals, not the Vietnamese army

Define military grade.
Because there are a lot of civilian rifles that are way, way more powerful than what the military uses.

Well that would be my definition right there.
More powerful than necessary.
If the only guns available to citizens were basic, self defense oriented and hunting/sport style guns, it would be alot easier to make those guns available for all who need them.
You must accept the fact that there are retards all over this country, and a retard should not have access to something that powerful.
The rifles that are that powerful fall into the category of unnecessary for civilians, although saying all firearms are unnecessary is going too far.
Do you see where I wanna draw the line?

If I am hunting a Cape buffalo in Africa, I need a more powerful rifle than the US military uses because it is a large, dangerous game animal.
It is also one of the most basic requirement to hunt large game with - the largest general issue round the military uses is the .308Win.
The .300WinMag is twice the round that the .308Win is, and it is a super common North American big game round - used for deer, elk, bear, wild pig etc. - it’s even legal in Canada.
So, once again, define military grade.

By military grade I just meant powerful, more dangerous guns.
Are you completely OK with any IQ55 bozo having access to that gun you just described?
And I'm not talking about Africa, let Black Panther protect Africa, I'm talking about America, are there even buffalo left here?
Regardless, I think a gun like that should 100% be exponentially more difficult to obtain than an average handgun

stick the gun up your ass and fire it until it clicks. if you want to own a gun you should have to be shot to death first. just so you know the potential outcome

>Do you see where I wanna draw the line?
Not really, no. You're just throwing a bunch of words around.

What's a basic, self-defense oriented gun?
How powerful is more than necessary?
What do you even mean by powerful? Ballistics? Capacity? Action type?

It's plain as day that you know very little about guns, yet you presume to know what's "necessary" for self-defense.

>Regardless, I think a gun like that should 100% be exponentially more difficult to obtain than an average handgun
Handguns are used in WAY more murders though...

We have a buffalo and elk problem in my state - they are causing tens of millions in crop damage.
Yes, large game animals are routinely hunted throughout the United States and Canada.
What you are letting me know is you actually don’t know much about firearms at all, you’re basing your opinions on some nebulous, pre conceived and ill defined notion you have of what constitutes “military grade” firearms.
So, since you lack any type of actual understanding or knowledge on the subject, you’re basically in the same category as people like Kevin De Leon and Diane Feinstein - both anti-gun politicians who know jackshit about firearms, but yet they feel they’re qualified to legislate them.

>exemplary levels of cleanliness and safety... and virtually no guns.

>chewing gum is illegal

Maximum security prisons are super clean and safe too

Believe it or not some people prefer not living in a nanny state shit hole country like yours

Attached: 1514897665325.png (206x213, 15K)

>By military grade I just meant powerful, more dangerous guns.

Most firearms deaths are with one of the smallest, "least dangerous" caliber, .22lr

I don't know much about guns, and I don't claim to. I can reload a pistol and click the safety on or off, that's about it.
My idea of a basic self defense oriented gun is a handgun or perhaps even a shotgun, a lower end gun that could effectively allow its owner to fend off a potential threat, without allowing that same owner to kill an entire school of kids in record time.
More powerful than necessary is a gun used to kill fucking buffalo in Africa when you live in a damn suburb in Florida,
or anything the military might use to fight enemy armies in a war zone, things that clearly exceed the parameters of what I described as a self defense oriented weapon, whatever you think the appropriate term for that kind of weapon is
>Handguns are used in WAY more murders though...
people are gonna fight, that cannot be avoided
all I want is to have a decent option when some angry dillweed comes trying to take my wallet, or kidnap my girlfriend or sister, and for that guy to not be equipped with a god damn rocket launcher

you're the worst kind of idiot available on the market

m.mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.46bW2E8xs

>or anything the military might use to fight enemy armies in a war zone

you need bigger guns to hunt deer than most anything standard issued to modern military

>anything the military might use to fight enemy armies in a war zone

You clearly lack a basic understanding of the purpose of the second amendment

except I'm not really anti guns, I want you and every other regular American to have a reasonable selection
If you got buffalo problems where you are, and you've got things to protect that buffalo destroy, then I want you to have the fucking buffalo gun
But since you're a fucking dumbass who fires off at anyone who you disagree with, then maybe you in particular shouldnt have access to shit

>handgun or perhaps even a shotgun
>allow its owner to fend off a potential threat, without allowing that same owner to kill an entire school of kids in record time

Cho Seung Hui killed more people than any other school shooting ever and third or fourth most of any mass shooting ever with two handguns, one of which was babby's first .22 target pistol.

duh its not, dumb ass nigga.

hey I like the second amendment, I'd like nothing more than for our government to respect it
but they dont, do they?
sometimes you gotta meet people in the middle

For those of you that don't own a gun, what do you do when you hear a window shatter at 2 a.m. and hear someone in the house? If you said "call the police and hope for the best" then you're a dumb fuck. And if your answer is "that doesn't happen in my country" then congratulations for not having any black people in your country, but that's not the case here in the U.S. of A.

P.S. Not all black people are criminal pieces of shit, but if you look at all the places where gun control supposedly "works" they are also places with very few blacks. Coincidence?

and I've got a different solution for that problem that doesn't involve banning babby's first pistol
see these

Except I am not firing off at you, I am disagreeing with your uninformed and ignorant about the subject at hand opinion.
No where have I attacked you personally (unlike what you have done), I debated your stance.
Personally your actions and lack of education on this subject make you seem like an anti-gunner who is just lying about their 2A support - a not unheard of strategy that has been used by Bloomberg’s gun control groups before.

>anything the military might use to fight enemy armies in a war zone
So the Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 pump shotguns, and the Beretta 92 handgun should all be off-limits then?

You seem upset, Op

Did the other thread rustle your jimmies?

Attached: 1488742819050.png (407x333, 189K)

And for you stupid fucks that keep parroting your spoon fed line of "turning teachers into security guards", there is a big fucking difference between requiring teachers to be armed, and allowing teachers who wish to do so to be armed.

Plenty of teachers have carry permits and carry every other fucking place they go every day, but are disarmed at work simply because they work at a school. That's fucking stupid.

And Gun Free Zones (victim disarmament zones) are fucking stupid. And people that support Gun Free Zones are OBVIOUSLY stupid because if you want to go kill a bunch of people where the fuck else would you go but the place where you know you won't face any resistance?

Nice selfie. Tits or get the fuck out.

Given that they want me to be able to buy tools with which I can defend myself or, if I lack morals, inflict myself upon others, I agree. A terrorist organization would want me to be powerless.

>you gotta meet people in the middle


Gun owners have met in the middle, many many times.

The fact is it only last a few years before liberals come back screaming 'THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! YOU WONT EVEN COMPROMISE?!?!?!?! JUST MEET US IN THE MIDDLE, ITS COMMON SENSE LEGISLATION!!!!"

>National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934)

>Federal Firearms Act of 1938

>Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

>Gun Control Act of 1968

>Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986

>Undetectable Firearms Act 1988

>Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990

>Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993

>Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (This is probably close to what youre talking about, and was repealed because it did nothing to affect gun violence)

Columbine happened during that ban too btw

>Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)

Idiots with no firearm knowledge end up writing legislation thats 100% pants on head retarded.

pic related is illegal in California for example

Attached: 1510811354112.jpg (960x540, 80K)

45 years ago when the high school I was going to was starting to be over run by beaners and gangs, all the security carried pistols and there was never any trouble. You went 3 blocks away and there was a turf war going on and people being killed all the time. So from my experience it works!

Attached: 1520081988291.jpg (511x733, 31K)

Man I wanna kick Bloomberg in the nuts
I live in NYC and I made this thread because I want a fucking handgun because this is the Capitol of Crime and there's fucking kids with guns out here thinking they're genetically superior because their buddy gave them a gun
My logic is maybe I could get my hands on a legal pistol if legalizing that pistol didnt at the same time legalize things like oversized buffalo guns, things that would scare off these candyland legislators
Unfortunately there are too many people on both sides that want things to be 100% their way while refusing to compromise on anything
As I stated, I dont know too much about guns, but imma "take a shot" here anyways
the bolt action rifle? sure, legal
the 870 afterwards? cant say, dont know it
the pump shotgun? the only shotgun that should be legal, IMO
the Beretta? legal, the gun doesnt make the criminal, I'd much rather a criminal have that than say, a buffalo gun
if soldiers take pistols to war, that doesnt make the pistol an overpowered weapon, I mean things like fully automatic rapid fire shit, that is what I want to be illegal for civilians, because I dont want anyone living next to me to be pulling that out when I call him an overweight crackhead

Attached: 1521197215395.png (900x1300, 77K)

funeral parlors are not penis collecting organizations

Attached: 1521092857514m.jpg (576x1024, 83K)

Attached: 1519884629493m.jpg (719x1024, 81K)

Buffalo guns are shit like single-shot rifles made 150 years ago and full auto weapons are effectively already banned if you're not super rich.

Also, maybe don't call people overweight crackheads to their face.

Attached: ydmf.png (720x528, 438K)

>the 870 afterwards? cant say, dont know it
>the pump shotgun? the only shotgun that should be legal, IMO

the 870 and 500 are pump shotguns, both commonly used by the U.S. military

Just like you feel compelled to call me a dense motherfucker, I think its important to inform overweight crackheads that they gotta get their shit together
The problem is if someone is a failure of a person to the point that they become an overweight crackhead, they'd probably be more willing to pull out a gun, instead of admit that they ever did anything wrong in their life, ever
So, I'd rather him have a small pistol, so he doesn't get too cocky
Is that wrong?
I want guns to be more accessible in my area, I think the answer is to limit it to small guns

responded to the wrong one
was meant for

It's really not about "military grade" or not
I just think more people who dont have access to guns, could, if it was kept to a minimum, like just handguns, especially because there isnt much hunting to do here
It should be clear at this point that our government has no intention to allow 2nd amendment rights in their entirety, so maybe those of us dealing with American legislators from Singapore could start small?

Ah, I see. You want to be the cocky one, secure in the knowledge that if someone you are an asshole to decides they want to kill you, they have to do it with the type of weapon used in more murders than any other.

Attached: 1337220037560.jpg (450x450, 68K)

> I'd rather him have a small pistol
see
see

>>takes second amendment to mean "everyone can get any fucking gun they want and do whatever they want with it"


but that is literally what it is. In fact, in the 1930s a supreme court case determined that guns covered by the second amendment specifically means any gun the military uses, because then the people have equal firepower to the gov't

Yeah, I want fair ground for a fight.
I want to be allowed a handgun, and if you don't like me, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed one.
If AR-15's were legal in all the places that handguns are legal, the AR-15 would probably be the one associated with the most murders.
I'm not trying to keep shit for myself, I'm in a position where I don't have any guns.
They're never gonna open the floodgates, so I want to promote the idea of letting in something small and basic.
I'm not completely against you.
You stupid jerk.

I don't think that shit is right, I think it's fucking dumb.
I don't think you understand, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone without legal guns.
Imagine this being Singapore, with a sudden influx of gun toting criminals
Do we petition our gun-hating government for a full range of every firearm known to man?
Or do we use a term like "self defense" weapons?

"Im not a crook"
"There was no collusion"
"Fucking traps isnt gay"

Attached: 1517180266615.jpg (235x489, 30K)