1 1
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The tide is turning, Phil. This next generation joined the NRA cause their mothers & fathers belonged to it. Since about the late 1990's those kids realized that it wasn't an educational organization, but a lobbying firm and started turning elsewhere. There's been a big influx of joining your local gun range and doing regional "meets." Plus you get more out of your local gun range - training, weapons education, storage, safety, etc. In time, the NRA will cease to exist.     

Hi Keith,

We can only hope.  And, my hope is that you are right.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The tide is turning, Phil. This next generation joined the NRA cause their mothers & fathers belonged to it. Since about the late 1990's those kids realized that it wasn't an educational organization, but a lobbying firm and started turning elsewhere. There's been a big influx of joining your local gun range and doing regional "meets." Plus you get more out of your local gun range - training, weapons education, storage, safety, etc. In time, the NRA will cease to exist.     

I agree. I was a NRA member about 30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The tide is turning, Phil. This next generation joined the NRA cause their mothers & fathers belonged to it. Since about the late 1990's those kids realized that it wasn't an educational organization, but a lobbying firm and started turning elsewhere. There's been a big influx of joining your local gun range and doing regional "meets." Plus you get more out of your local gun range - training, weapons education, storage, safety, etc. In time, the NRA will cease to exist.     

It is happening now, several of the organizations vying to unseat the NRA as the nation’s top gun advocate are considered more aggressive advocates of the Second Amendment and include the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights, as well as the more moderate Second Amendment Foundation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is happening now, several of the organizations vying to unseat the NRA as the nation’s top gun advocate are considered more aggressive advocates of the Second Amendment and include the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights, as well as the more moderate Second Amendment Foundation. 

Gun Owners of America spent $900k in the 2020 elections. The National Association for Gun Rights" hired its first federal lobbyist in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that occurred in December 2012"

According to republicans " NAGR was described as a "fund-raising machine that bullies anyone who compromises Brown's pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda." Former Colorado Republican State Representative B.J. Nikkel said Brown "is a political terrorist and a modern-day charlatan who operates in the shadows and portrays himself as a supposed 'Christian,' but he uses the people naive enough to believe him and financially support him"

So its not really a pro 2nd group as much as its 'anti-abortion, anti-gay". Oh well sounds just like another GOP lobby PAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So about the prop gun killing? Wonder what the DA will decide on that incident. Personally, it seems that claiming, "I was told it wasn't loaded", isn't too strong of a defense. 

Here is SC, going back 20ish years, it seems that we had at least one "accidental" shooting annually. The news articles typically said, "Woman killed while husband cleaning shotgun in living room."

They finally started prosecuting those cases and surprisingly they stopped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

vying to unseat the NRA as the nation’s top gun advocate are considered more aggressive advocates of the Second Amendment and include the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights, as well as the more moderate Second Amendment Foundation. 

Be polite, cite your source:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/18/nra-gun-lobbyist-1466701

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

Rittenhouse found Not Guilty.  Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Kenosha shootings - oregonlive.com

This should get the gun sales going even more.

Jerry Baumchen

Did you watch the trial? The outcome was never in doubt.  “So when did the defendant shoot you? “When I pointed my gun at his head”. Case closed 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Rittenhouse found Not Guilty.

Evening Jerry,

I wasn't at the trial and so I can only express my surprise when he was found not guilty on all charges. I am reminded of John Grisham's book, "A Time to Kill" where at the end; "Now close your eyes and pretend he's black."  Chew on that for a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Evening Jerry,

I wasn't at the trial and so I can only express my surprise when he was found not guilty on all charges. I am reminded of John Grisham's book, "A Time to Kill" where at the end; "Now close your eyes and pretend he's black."  Chew on that for a bit. 

Chew on this

Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist (He liked little boys) that had been released from a mental facility that week and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater.  Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record and was in illegal possession of a large caliber handgun.

I’m not blaming you, if you only knew what the MSM reported you never would have known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So you’re saying as long as he shot people who turned out to be bad it was OK?

What does that make George Zimmerman, who shot someone who wasn’t a criminal?

Wendy P. 

Good rule of thumb, don’t attack folks with guns.  Just ask Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Joseph Rosenbaum.  Darwin principle in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Did you watch the trial? The outcome was never in doubt.  “So when did the defendant shoot you? “When I pointed my gun at his head”. Case closed 

I am not the least bit surprised at the outcome. The onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So you’re saying as long as he shot people who turned out to be bad it was OK?

What does that make George Zimmerman, who shot someone who wasn’t a criminal?

Many on the right side tried to solve that problem by making Martin a criminal.  "He was no choirboy!"

One also wonders why, if that is the right wing's position on this, they seem rather upset that one of the Capitol looters was shot and killed by an officer defending the Capitol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Evening Jerry,

I wasn't at the trial and so I can only express my surprise when he was found not guilty on all charges. I am reminded of John Grisham's book, "A Time to Kill" where at the end; "Now close your eyes and pretend he's black."  Chew on that for a bit. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  I wasn't at the trial and so I can only express my surprise when he was found not guilty on all charges.

That is almost word for word what I said to a good friend who called me today.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Good rule of thumb, don’t attack folks with guns.  Just ask Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Joseph Rosenbaum.  Darwin principle in effect.

So carrying a gun makes you right? Does that only work if you can identify as white? WTF

Scaring someone, and then shooting them when they try to fight back, then crying self-defense, is utterly chickenshit. Expecting to get away with it because mas enforcement is likely to sympathize is a pretty striking example of white privilege. It indicates a problem both with law enforcement and with the perpetrator. 
Wendy P. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So carrying a gun makes you right? Does that only work if you can identify as white? WTF

Scaring someone, and then shooting them when they try to fight back, then crying self-defense, is utterly chickenshit. Expecting to get away with it because mas enforcement is likely to sympathize is a pretty striking example of white privilege. It indicates a problem both with law enforcement and with the perpetrator. 
Wendy P. 

Why do you feel it necessary to inject race into this?  Three convicted WHITE felons attack a kid and get their comeuppance.  Where is the white privilege?

Did you even see the videos?  Did you watch the trial? Or do you feel narrative outweighs evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a 8+ hours of the trial. It was the prosecutors job to prove guilt. He failed miserably.

A couple items on the prosecutor: When he was questioning a key prosecution witness, Grosskreuzt, the guy basically made the case for the defense. He said something to the effect of - I ran to the scene from a couple blocks away, approached Kyle, pointed my pistol at him (he was within 6' of Kyle), and that's when I was shot. In that picture that is my arm exploding. Yes, I'm holding a pistol in that picture. At that point the other prosecuting attorney laid his head on the table and covered his face.

When the prosecutor was questioning Kyle about why he shot Grosskreuzt, he said, "it was only a pistol." Was the prosecutor that ignorant about guns or just making the absurd statement that a pistol wasn't dangerous?

There were other witnesses that stated how Kyle was chased, attacked, knocked down, kicked, hit on the head with a skateboard, etc., by the two that he killed.

There was video backing up the testimony. Watching the video one could infer that 17-year old Kyle finally realized he was in grave danger and was running towards the police to escape while these attacks occurred. Not smart but not illegal.

The jury took 32 hours before rendering the verdict. On day 2 or 3 of deliberations they asked to review the videos, presumably to get clarity on what they remembered. One juror asked to review the judges instructions, again, presumably to make sure they understood what they were doing. It seems that they took the time to review everything and determined that it was self defense. Many comments I'm seeing on social media clearly show that people didn't watch the trial and don't know the basic facts, or simply are ignoring the facts that don't match their opinion.

It was self-defense, at least according to the jury. Regardless of the legality, he was wreck less to have been there and he's lucky he wasn't killed. To me the real issue is the politicians getting involved and the police not enforcing the law to stop the rioting.

It will be interesting to see the civil cases that come next. There are quite a few outspoken celebrities that made slanderous statements well-before knowing any of the evidence. Joy Reid, Biden, MSNBC and plenty of other media outlets could be on the list.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It will be interesting to see the civil cases that come next. There are quite a few outspoken celebrities that made slanderous statements well-before knowing any of the evidence. Joy Reid, Biden, MSNBC and plenty of other media outlets could be on the list.

 

 

 

Rittenhouse will never have to work a day in his life.  His settlements will make Nick Sandmann’s look like small potatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Rittenhouse will never have to work a day in his life.  His settlements will make Nick Sandmann’s look like small potatoes.

Don't remember much about Nick but didn't he not sue many others that he could have sued? I think CNN and Washington Post took the big hits. I think the WP settlement was $250 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, murps2000 said:

I am not the least bit surprised at the outcome. The onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murder. 

I have been paying attention to the reports of the trial daily. I am only surprised that there was not a hung jury. There was no way that he was going to be convicted. As crazy as it is, he did not do anything illegal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2021 at 5:38 AM, billeisele said:

Here is SC, going back 20ish years, it seems that we had at least one "accidental" shooting annually. The news articles typically said, "Woman killed while husband cleaning shotgun in living room."

They finally started prosecuting those cases and surprisingly they stopped. 

What? You think you had one accidental shooting each year? You think they stopped?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=south+carolina+accidental+shooting&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1