NRA refuses to debate Obama

[Rich10]

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-wayne-lapierre-challenges-obama-gun-debate-article-1.2496953

[colt1911fan]

Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.

Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?

Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.

No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation.   

Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.

Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.

And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.

But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.

[redbaron007]

Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.

Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?

Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.

No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation.   

Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.

Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.

And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.

But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.

Guess I'm confused......how does giving more influence/control to the bureaucrats help the bearing of arms in the future? From your comments, I am making an assumption, which you are are more than welcome to correct; but I get the feeling and perception that you are saying, if I give into more/stricter background checks (whatever they will be) you will get something in return that you don't have already. I have never seen the government take something from you and turn around and give you more. 

What specifically are you wanting to support; then receive back from the Bureaucrats?

[colt1911fan]

Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.

Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?

Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.

No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation.   

Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.

Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.

And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.

But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.

Guess I'm confused......how does giving more influence/control to the bureaucrats help the bearing of arms in the future? From your comments, I am making an assumption, which you are are more than welcome to correct; but I get the feeling and perception that you are saying, if I give into more/stricter background checks (whatever they will be) you will get something in return that you don't have already. I have never seen the government take something from you and turn around and give you more. 

What specifically are you wanting to support; then receive back from the Bureaucrats?

A little late to reply, guess I don't monitor the threads enough. But the receive back was in the first post, the right to carry wherever I want with said guns bought with higher standards (and carry means in all states and with limited gun free zones, where each one provides security screening of all and armed security and lockers to store mine). Give me that, and you can control my purchases more strictly.