All Godwins aside, the figures circulated by the NRA are incorrect.

I wouldn't know. I don't think it matters.

And yet you have repeatedly commented on it.

So? I mean that crime statistics do not matter and may not have an effect on gun availability.

Also, the NRA does not have an agenda except to protect and preserve the constitution and our right to bear arms.

The only "agenda" is the liberal/Nazi agenda to disarm American citizens.

want some facts?

http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-and-gun-homicide-rates

Excuse me, but that is an agenda, and apparently it doesn't matter if they use dishonest tactics to achieve it.



Liberal/Nazi? Oh, come on.

Thanks!!

That was the funniest interview I've ever seen. Beautifully staged by Alex.

Really? Protecting our rights is an agenda? That's laughable. We should not even be having to be put in that position.

Our rights (all of them) and our Constitution are under attack. THAT is an agenda! If that was not happening then the NRA would not have to be in a defensive mode.

I say "Liberal" because this current government is raising taxes and spending too much. I say Nazi, because that is the best term I can come up with to describe the globalist mafia that has a choke hold on this country.

I see, you define 'agenda' in the negative. I define it neutrally as in 'the set of goals of an ideological group' despite the use of questionable tactics. The NRA are a powerful lobby group politically and that can't be denied despite the nationalistic fervour. All hyperbole aside, the constitution is not really under 'attack' as such, and Liberals aren't really Nazis.

I don't really define agenda as a negative. I understand that everyone has an "agenda." But the "agenda" of the NRA to defend the right to bear arms should not even be necessary. But that right is under attack.

The constitution is under attack.

Just a question, why do you hold one anachronistic (in reference to local militia) clause of the constitution sacrosanct? I mean, it's a little strange to revere a document drafted 250 years ago. Aristotle pointed out that constitutions must evolve over long periods of time or risk becoming irrelevant to a society owing to change.

There have been many amendments to the constitution and it has evolved. But I don't see the right to keep and bear arms or the right to free speech will ever be "irrelevant."

The same officials who want to take our right to bear arms away from us, the common citizen, have guns themselves for protection and even armed guards and armed security. A common citizen can't afford to hire armed security guards for protection, so they should retain the right to own and carry guns if they chose.

I see no need to register weapons, and see no reason to restrict or prohibit the creation or sale of guns.

Real gun control is putting the bullet into the target and nowhere else!

we need a president with their own private body guards

stys out of the public

live in solitude

does biweekly pod-cast (or whatever they are called) on heir on web site to keep the people informed

study every bill ever brought to the legislative body that is unconstitutional

then try all those that supported said bill for treason

but hey what do i know

No-one is actually suggesting taking the guns away are they? The lobbyists for gun control just want to see some form of control over availability and capability.



With the US record for assassinations (either successful or attempted) it is only reasonable.



But surely you don't want just anyone buying weapons without age restrictions or background checks?



Obviously lobby groups supported by the parents of dead school children see it another way. I know gun control is a dead issue in the US, it's too firmly entrenched in your culture, however, one has to sympathise with the parents of these kids and see their side of the story. It's not about the gubbmint trying to take yer gunz. The politicians are only responding to lobbyists who want to see an end to these spree shootings.

Furthermore, the analogy to Nazi Germany is a bit silly too, for Hitler didn't need to take the guns, he achieved power by subterfuge, assassinations, arson and political manipulation. When Germany woke up on the morning of 24th March 1933, any uprising that may have ensued in order to depose Hitler would have been futile and insurgents would have been treated as criminals. The analogy is somewhat spurious in light of historical events. Imagine any form of domestic rebellion against the US government using weapons in a modern scenario, and the rebels would also be treated as criminals, so the reason for the second amendment is somewhat anachronistic in modern times.

I don't think things in any country can ever get better, things have changed, more so in some countries than others, as i said, I had no problem having to get a gun licence if I wanted to keep my guns, I didnt use them so chose not to, when I was on the farm I needed them, when I moved to the city I didnt.

I would say if you checked the statistic that it would be in the 5 larger cities that crime has risen, things in Australia have changed over the last 10 years, people have come in from many different countries and brought in different things that where not really here before. In Sydney and Melbourne, you may hear of a shooting, but it is rare to hear of it anywhere besides the 5 major cities, if it does happen, we all know about it and it makes headlines across the country.

I was educated on using them as a child and enjoy them.

Regardless of the laws, people will always get one if they really want one, it's no different to anything that is made illegal.

At the moment where I live, we dont need to lock our doors, everyone around town watches out for each other, my children can wander around safely, they can go to school and I don't have to worry.

If I lived where my children may be threatened or I may need to protect them, then yep I would probably have a gun, i would have no trouble doing whatever I needed to keep my children safe.

But I still wouldnt have any trouble registering the gun I owned.

I just registered my new set of Screwdrivers!
They were 5mm beyond the allowed length!

Yes, but they have no right to that control; that is reserved for the individual people. The only control in that regard (weapon sales) that the American people have willfully delegated to their government is control over people with violent criminal records and diagnosis of mental instability. All other rights regarding gun control are in the hands of the individual American. They don't need a Second amendment for that, but its a good thing it was written down…It saves the entire population from having to individually claim that as their right under natural law.



That is common sense and compatible with law. Please note that these checks have been in there all along…There is no need for "democratic" legislation (such as that being proposed and much ALREADY in force, that would trample on the natural rights of any human being. Simply put gun registration is NOT compulsary and cannot be lawfully compelled. The same is true in limiting the type of weaponry one can buy.



Attack is the wrong word….It has been a gradual process of evisceration. There are already far too many unconstitutional "laws" on the books that will have to be cleared off with constitutional challenges in the courts. I fear the American people, being the "sleepy" bunch they were have been caught "napping."

It's good to see so many finally waking up to what is really going on! Their (alleged) "government" has hit a nerve in them and awakened a sleeping giant (and he's pissed about what it's been doing while he was "napping").

I wouldn't wanna be the American "government" now for all the tea in China! It had better give in & start serving (instead of screwing) the American people again…and quick!