Sarah Palin's NRA Speech

As far as I can tell, the NRA is the militia of people terrified of background checks for some reason. Now, I realize that some of the most spectacular mass murder cases wouldn't have run afoul of even the most stringent background checks. Maybe some small portion of daily crime involving guns would be reduced over time, but that's hard to say. In actual practice, the background checks are mostly symbolic. They symbolize "gun control". Which is something far more threatening than a felon with a gun, I guess.

 

You answered your own question.

You admit background checks won't work. Liberals know that, so why push for them?



Because when it comes time for confiscation, they'll know everyone who's purchased a gun recently.

And that's a very scary thought to gun owners

 

OK, I think this is a good and valid response. A bit on the paranoid side, but not too far because in some nations they HAVE decided to go ahead and confiscate everyone's guns. What I'm not quite following is why a background check (rather than the registration we have today) makes confiscation easier.

 

We register handguns. A few states register rifles.

Background checks and registers are the same thing, lists of gun owners.

And it isn't just SOME countries who've taken guns away from there people, its a whole lot of them. Throughout history governments have done so to insure the people cannot reset the government.

Thinking that it can't happen here is naive in my opinion

 

OK, MORE than a little paranoid. In Western nations, confiscation has never been to ensure that people can't resist the government. These are stable, popular governments we're talking about here. The goal has always been to reduce the fatality rate due to crime. In nations without popular governments (that is, dictatorships and strongman governments) it's not the people who are the problem, exactly, it's the fact the the government is NOT popular. In those cases, efforts at confiscation always fail. People won't turn in their guns for the same reason they're being asked to do so, which is mutual distrust.

Let me put this another way. IF the US decides, despite centuries of history and important legal precedents, that the people no longer have a right to bear arms, it's going to already be a nation we wouldn't want to live in for countless other (and more serious) reasons.

So I'm not saying it can't happen "here" in a geographical sense, I'm saying it can't happen except in a nation changed beyond all recognition. Can such a thing come to pass? Sure, but not soon and not easily as things stand. Now, if our great grandchildren vote to give up their guns voluntarily, hopefully they'll know what they're doing.

 

So it only happens when a government becomes unpopular?

...well our government is about to become very unpopular. We're broke, we've got endless wars, healthcare is a mess and taxes are about to go up big time.

And I find it very ironic that you talk about a nation changed beyond all recognition.

Changing this nation to something completely different than its history is exactly what the left wants to do.

And they know they'll need to disarm the people if that's going to happen

 

29% of Americans feel that armed revolt may be necessary in the future


Can any good Americans tell me what is historically significant about that (approximate) number?

 

Another self-serving speech by the woman who obviously has no clue. She must be getting ready to write another book....errr, excuse me, have a ghost writer do it for her.

 

I ask you, how did Alexander Hamilton die?

 

The Shay Rebellionists ?

 

Maybe this is a terminololgy issue. A "popular government" is a government where the will of the people has a strong influence over government actions. Maybe I should say representative government.

But we can go to the polls, throw the bums out, and replace them with people who we prefer. THAT is what popular government is all about.

Sheesh. Nobody I've ever met wants to do that, except some wild radicals back in the 60s who wanted to outright overthrow the government (though they had no candidate governmental structures to replace it). So long as people can vote, there will be no need for armed uprising. If people are no longer permitted to vote, THAT is a change beyond all recognition. Everyone wants to change things for the better, they just disagree on what's better. HOW to change things for the better seems agreed on across ideolologies, though - vote it in.

And the people we vote in are like you and me - ordinary citizens who decided to run for office. It's not "they", it's us.

 

Go ahead and names those countries that had a second amendment and confiscated guns anyway.

 

Nope,the second amendment clearly states the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms,not the militia

 

Ahh gotta love liberals...reinvent history to serve their twisted viewpoints..

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you frequently go out of your way to insult and demean her

 

In my humble opinion, Sarah Palin seems like a manipulative opportunist, willing to jump onto any bandwagon if she thinks it will give her support. That said, the one good thing at least is that I believe her professed gun beliefs are truly genuine. She is an avid hunter and comes from a frontier state, where they don't look kindly to paternalistic nanny governments trying to micromanage everyone's life. Out there in the open frontier, the notion of being completely dependant on a professional police force is just silly.

 

Like many,the only reason is she has the temerity to stand up to the messiah Owebama

 

The fact that you lefties feel the need to constantly belittle a successful woman says volumes about your hypocrisy.

 

She'll never go away as long as the left maintains their hypocritical sexist attacks against her

- - - Updated - - -

You're lying.

 

Calling her vile names doesn't equate with laughing at her either

 

Outside a discussion about her breasts I have not seen anything that would be considered vile

 

I find it oddly hypocritical that if republicans had called geraldine ferraro the same names you libs call palin,you'd have had kittens.

 

Doesn't need to belong to one.

 

Why would the NRA be 'terrified' of something we already have?