NRA: Stand and Fight

| January 15, 2013 | 174 Comments

The folks at the NRA send us a link to their latest campaign Stand and Fight and this is the first of their videos in that campaign.

If the video doesn’t work, it’s also at the link. I’m on my Kindle for the rest of night. Lazy person that I am.

Category: Guns

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (174)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    I think everyone here is entitled to their own opinions it does not mean I have to agree with it

  2. rb325th says:

    If you are from any country other than the United States, your views on our Law, our Constitution are moot… Stop being so self righteous, you have your fair share of skeletons hanging around.

    “Americans should be embarrassed…” well I am embarrassed for you, and for my country if you are from here and come one here talking absolute nonsense about our laws, and guns when you obviously haven’t a clue about either.

  3. Twist says:

    @41, the Ruger Mini-14 is legal in Canada. It fires the same round as the AR-15, can accomidate a “high capacity magazine”, and does not have to be registered except in Quabec.

  4. Hondo says:

    I’m wondering if “America should be . . . ” and “Canadian” might be folks who used to be Americans but moved north to avoid military obligations.

    Just wondering.

  5. NHSparky says:

    @48…whoopsie!!! Care to try that again, eh?

    Maybe your vaunted healthcare system ain’t all it’s cracked up to be either.

    BTW–want to do a comparison of violent crime rates in Canada versus the US? You sure?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

  6. Anonymous says:

    # 52

    People are entitled to opinions, yes.

    It doesn’t mean that their opinion has facts to back up what they say.

    FACTS are what matter most about peoples opinions and if there are no facts to back what you are saying, you may as well just be spouting rhetorical non-sense.

  7. Jacobite says:

    And as an aside, for all those here who keep saying they ‘lost a loved one to a gun’, umm no you didn’t. While it may help you personally to lie to yourself that way, you didn’t ‘lose a loved one to a gun’, you lost a loved one to the irresponsible actions of a human being, blaming an inanimate object serves no useful purpose.

  8. Twist says:

    Or that other place known as Quebec.

  9. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    You are right. I do not have facts to back up what I am saying but it is my opinion I think guns are unnecessary thats that. Just like you guys think they are I don’t.

  10. Anonymous says:

    # 60

    Now leave it at that and just leave the comment section alone.

    You have no FACTS to bring to the table of discussion, this is how you know you have lost.

    Do us all a favor and leave.

  11. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    Thank goodness I wasn’t in person with you all someone probably would have pulled a gun on me for disagreeing BYE!

  12. NHSparky says:

    @60–well, lucky for us your opionion means fuck-all.

    How’s that freedom of speech thingy going for ya’ll up there? What? You say you don’t have it? Shame, really.

  13. Twist says:

    #18 “You are all money hungry desperate losers”

    #22 “No need to be so angry! Just a discussion”

    You could cut the irony with a knife.

  14. Hondo says:

    @60: Best watch it up there in the Great White North when spouting your opinion. I understand speech ain’t exactly that free up there – though it does seem to be moving in the right direction a bit.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/09/andrew-coyne-why-does-canada-still-have-a-hate-speech-law/

  15. Anonymous says:

    I love how # 62 had to get a last word, after he just got his ass handed to him.

    I prefer to fight with a suit and a smile, but if i have to use a gun to defend my property and my children, then so be it.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I want to start off by saying that I am not pro-guns and that I do believe the American government should alter gun laws in a way that deters an event like Newtown from ever recurring.

    This is a forum of free discussion. I do not see why there is so much animosity towards opposing views when their grounds for concern are valid, given what happened at Newtown. I think the only way that we can have a well-rounded discussion is to NOT dismiss valid concerns. I believe that those who support gun laws need to consider the national impact of a tragedy like Newtown on the public and that something like Newtown has the capacity to spark serious deliberation about gun laws among U.S. administration. Also, I think we should be a little more compassionate and less hostile toward the concerned teachers in this forum. Many teachers today genuinely believe that they have to fear for their own lives, the lives of their students and the lives of their colleagues on a daily basis. It is no surprise that American teachers see a direct correlation between gun laws and the Newtown tragedy. Even if there is not, I believe that as a result of this national massacre, gun laws need to be addressed by the American government.

    The NRA released this new ad. Despite the dramatic nature of the ad, I was able to see the point that they were making. However, what I do not agree with is the manner in which it was displayed. For those of you that are pro-guns, why do you think that the NRA insists on presenting such “political pornography” to advocate guns?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50480124 ?

  17. NHSparky says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, @62 is a prime example of what happens when you don’t monitor your children’s Internet activity.

    You have been warned.

  18. NHSparky says:

    Anon @67–I’d be willing to address the left/gun-grabbers reasonable concerns, if they had any…

  19. Anonymous says:

    # 67

    Don’t let the Mainstream Media think for you. I humored the link and watch 1 minute of it before i got sick to my stomach and almost lost my breakfast.

    Referring to one of my last posts.

    “You do realize that what your saying goes against protecting children in schools from shootings right?

    Stripping guns from good people that would protect your future child is at stake.

    How would you feel if a gunman showed up at your childs school and began shooting up the place?

    Would you rather have police show up 10-15 minutes and even possibly 20 minutes later?! Rather than having a policeman on-site to act literally within seconds or a private security officer trained just for those situations?

    Think before you type.”

  20. Twist says:

    Anyone willing to bet that #67 has the same IP as Canadian and ASBA? Any takers?

  21. Old Trooper says:

    @22: Do you have armed guards to transport money and protect banks up there in Canada? Do you have armed guards protecting some of your politicians? Do you think they are much more important things to protect than your children? Are you saying that protecting your money is more important than protecting your children? If that’s the case, then it is you who should be embarrassed.

  22. O-4E says:

    @60

    Having worked with the Canadian military extensively as a cross border training liaison officer for 3 years and having spent a substantial amount of time in Canada I can say without a doubt that we have a vastly different opinion on this subject that is based on historical and cultural differences.

    On a base level I do not believe that the protection of me or my family should be the sole responsibility of the Government or a hope in the “kindness” of my fellow man to do the right thing. I do not trust my Government or my fellow man enough to trade in my ability to protect myself or my family. Obviously you do which is your right. Your only option now is “hope” or to be a victim. I am not comfortable with either of those options.

    On a much broader perspective you are at the mercy of your Government and much larger adversaries…being a Canadian. Until the Crown was “kind enough” to grant Canada independence in 1867 you remained at the mercy of the Crown. They could have done anything they wished and there would have been little you could have done about it.

    Even today your defense in largely based on diplomacy and the protection of much larger allies. If either of those goes to hell…then what? Once again…hope is not a method I am comfortable with.

  23. NHSparky says:

    I do believe the American government should alter gun laws in a way that deters an event like Newtown from ever recurring.

    Short of confiscating every single gun, ain’t gonna happen.

  24. Hondo says:

    Anonymous (67): I just saw the POTUS and VP droning on and on about the “twenty beautiful first-graders” (exact words) killed at Sandy Hook. Why does the left insist on using the bodies of children killed by a lunatic left to roam free by laws passed at their urging as a political backdrop? Laws that make it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit lunatics? That, sir – and nothing the NRA has brought to the debate – is “political pornography”.

    The left has the blood of these children on their hands. The left-controlled CT legislature considered changing that law last year – and refused to do so.

    And yet, the left continues callously to use murdered children as nothing but a backdrop in order to push an anti-gun agenda. Why? “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Even if it’s a crisis you manufactured yourself.

  25. Hondo says:

    Twist: different IP address, but same Canadian city and ISP.

    I guess he/she moved to another computer at the library. Or maybe to a friend’s house.

  26. NHSparky says:

    Memo to Canadians and various Canuck sockpuppets:

    Fix your own fucking problems first before you come here and shit in our yards.

  27. Hondo says:

    O-4E: yeah, a foreign policy based on “sucking up” to the “big boys” ain’t exactly without risk.

    Personally, I’d rather live on my feet than spend my life on my knees. But to each his/her own.

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    Just wondering what relationship @60 has to any draft dodgers from the Vietnam era. Those people ran off to Canadia (intentional misspelling) and Australia quite a bit to avoid service.

    I knew someone who did that, ran off to Canadia when all he had to do to avoid being send to Vietnam was sign on with the Navy’s medical corps. He was an MD, a pathologist. The Navy would have been glad to have him.

  29. Sparky says:

    #27 – “anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned”

    You mean like…”Vhat do you vant dis veapon for?” “You vill talk to me I assure you.” “Your papers…zey are not in order”.

  30. Gruntling says:

    I really do hate hearing the same points rehashed over and over again. Gun control laws like the ones being proposed honestly won’t be anywhere near as effective as enforcing the laws we already have. Instead of all the fearmongering GUNS ARE BAD AND ONLY PSYCHOPATHS WANT THEM going around,how about we (brace yourselves, this is a pretty radical idea here) actually teach people about guns? As in, safety procedures, proper storage, not selling it to the shifty-eyed junkie on the corner, and, oh I don’t know, maybe what actually constitutes an assault weapon?

    Not entirely sure what my point was, but I just had to sit through an hour of a lecture in which the subject of “the upcoming assault weapons ban” came up almost ever other sentence. And these people are supposed to be educating me.

    Joy.

  31. NHSparky says:

    Gruntling–we do try to teach people about responsible gun use, but when people (like Joe) think there’s no legitimate purpose for a gun, it’s kind of hard to teach them to use it responsibly or that the vast majority of gun owners are in fact safe and responsible.

  32. Gruntling says:

    I know. Its just incredibly frustrating to hear so many people not only disagree with, but flat out ignore the statistics, facts, and vocal majority simply because they don’t want to believe that someone other than them could be right.

  33. Joe says:

    So the 2nd amendment fanatics’ party line is that if we ban guns, we should therefore ban cars, planes, knives, ropes, gas cans, etc., etc., because they can kill people too. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the US military arm our soldiers with cans of gas, ropes, etc., instead of guns?

  34. Twist says:

    Joe, you better get back to your coloring books before your mom realises she forgot to log off of her computer.

  35. Joe says:

    Answer the question.

  36. Twist says:

    Once again the dipshit that said he would gladly use the blood of the dead to get his way calling others fanatics.

  37. Joe says:

    Gruntling,
    Statistics are about what has already happened. Some people are more concerned with looking forward and changing those ststistics. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, conservatives never look forward, always back.

  38. Gruntling says:

    Joe, Thanks for proving my point. I would answer with this: we are not saying that everything potentially deadly should be banned. We are saying that only to illustrate a point: Namely, that just becaused something can be deadly, does not mean that immediately getting rid of it will solve anything. Saying it will is the equivalent of a toddler covering his ears and saying “Blah blah I can’t hear you”. Pretending that it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away. Banning guns won’t make them disappear, it will just create a veritable flood of illegal weapons.

    As to your point on soldiers, well, as you clearly know, a firearm is the most effective way to do our job in combat. That’s it.

    Also, I wouldn’t call myself a fanatic. Hell, a few years ago I would have been taking your side in this debate. I just believe that your argument is flawed, and ultimately creates far more problems that it solves.

  39. O-4E says:

    @84

    Well Joe…facts are that FBI statistics show that twice as many people are killed by “at hand” weapons like baseball bats and hammers than are killed by firearms every year.

    Those same statistics also show that deaths by gunshot have halved since 1994.

    So yes…some of us are tired of fanatical statements and kneejerk reactions not based on reason ro facts

  40. Gruntling says:

    Again, I’m not a conservative. I’m most definitely not a liberal, but not a conservative. I just call things like I see them.

  41. Twist says:

    Statistics like the ones that show where CCW have been issued that it is a fact that violent crime goes down. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, liberals like Joe never let facts get in their way.

  42. Rico says:

    Some very Sick folks made this ad and should not be allowed to carry a stick much less an assault gun.

  43. UpNorth says:

    And, demanding that someone answer his question? Fuck off, Joey-boy.

  44. Joe says:

    As I was waking up to greet the day, I heard an interview on BC News with a mother of one of the slain children. It was perhaps the most gut wrenching interview I have ever heard. I was literally crying in my corn flakes. First rushing to the school when the news hit, then hearing a rumor that her child’s teacher had been shot, then confirmatin, then the incomprehensible news that the entire class was dead. They found her son in his teacher’s arms, and incredibly, between her sobs, she said that gave her some comfort. To state that this is as good as it gets displays a titanic lack of imagination. I will state that without the easy availability of guns, this atrocity could not have happened.

  45. UpNorth says:

    And, in some people’s case, they should not be allowed near a keyboard and an internet connection, Rico.

  46. Joe says:

    should be “BBC News”.

  47. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Joe’s facts are moving targets. He used call himself pro-2d Amendment – but that was before Sandy Hook. So his facts derive solely from how he felt about those murdered kids. Everything that happened before that day, and after that day don’t register. That day he felt bad, and it sticks in his mind. One. Single. Day.

  48. UpNorth says:

    OH, and Joey-boy, I will state, like Hondo and others have, if it weren’t for you and yours making sure that people like Lanza couldn’t be committed, this wouldn’t have happened. Now, go tell mom that she left the computer on again.

  49. Hondo says:

    O-4E: did you mean “rifles” above?

  50. Rico says:

    Ya but i can’t kill you with my key board LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *