Who Is The NRA?

I am the NRA (National Rifle Association) as are millions of other peaceful law abiding citizens. Our friends on the left have this paranoid, psychotic view that NRA members are “gun nuts.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

More people in the US are killed by fists, baseball bats, or hammers than by rifles. In regions where most of the populace is legally armed, the violent crime rate is close to zero. Even including the violent 100% Democratic voting  inner cities – the violent crime rate in the US is one eighth of that in the disarmed UK.

The NRA and its members are about safety and a civil society, and they are extremely successful at it. NRA members almost never commit crimes.

Obama and Feinstein are determined to take our family safety away from us, and replace it with heavily armed government  thugs – similar to those from the LAPD. This is beyond madness and it needs to be stopped.

Call up your Congressional representatives today.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Who Is The NRA?

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    I am the NRA.

  2. higley7 says:

    Very simply, guns are a “necessary evil” (as well-conceived tools, they are elegant) as we will never be devoid of the 4% of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths and will always have mentally deranged and will always have people who are just plain evil. It’s simply stupid to think that one should not be able to defend oneself from these people. The police are simply not able to prevent crime unless one policeman is assigned to each citizen. Opps, that would mean arming half the population! And some of the police would fall into the above categories. It’s a nonstarter.

    Along that line, government attracts people who lust for power, even including a disproportionate number of sociopaths and psychopaths. These descriptive terms did exist back in the 1700s, but a larger portion of colonial life was human interaction and, thus, our Founding Fathers understood human nature very well and knew that safeguards needed to be built into the Constitution to allow us to resist the government’s propensity to grow its power over the people. Thus, they gave us free speech in the 1st Amendment and the right to defend it in the 2nd Amendment, as well as the right to defend ourselves against the government itself, if and when it moves from following the Constitution to imposing oppression of the people.

    Liberals reject the corruptive aspects of power, seeking power over others themselves (they consider themselves smarter than all others, who then must be controlled or take care of, which is power over others), and must consider the Constitution as outmoded, or openly re-interpretable at will, to allow them to ignore the serious protections from and power over the government that this document gives the people.

    It is ingenuous to believe that the government, even with its checks and balances, would never get out of hand, particularly if the three branches start to collude with each other, as they appear to be currently. Without the people able to act as the decisive check against tyrannical government, the Constitution is meaningless. The people would be safe only until the government figured out that there was nothing to be afraid of—the Constitution thus becomes just a document to put away. In other words, we, the armed citizens, including the NRA, are the teeth in the contract between the peoples of the 50 states that allows the government to exist. We are the teeth that they should fear—exactly why they want to disarm us.

    Also, guns are the great equalizer. Is it reasonable to tell an elderly couple that their only choice in a home invasion is to retreat and/or die? Retreating is meaningless if the invaders are out to hurt or kill them. So, disarming the elderly says that they are all to be victims and the criminals know this. That’s just wrong.

    Now, allow these people to have a gun and the balance of power shifts drastically. Sure, they stand a chance of losing to the invaders but they now have a very real chance of prevailing. The liberal claim that, if they lost, the result would be that the invaders get the gun and, thus, the elderly should not have guns in order to keep guns away from the criminals. This is a specious argument that simply throws the elderly under the bus for the sake of a possible result. In the liberals’ minds, the elderly are dead already, I guess they think it’s their fault for getting old?

    Note that nothing is being done or proposed to curb the illegal gun trade or making the citizens of the inner city any less than the professional unarmed victims they are today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s