arma virumque cano (et alia)
NRA membership is now over 5 million and growing. I bet that really chaps your ass laci
How many of Busch's girlfriends have died in his presence? If he were still a member, someone would probably claim that his continued membership "proves" the NRA is waging "War on Women."
This guy is a wonderful spokesman for the MOMs. It seems to show that they don't really check stuff first. First he seems to have emulated Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick by killing someone in an auto accident and then leaving without calling police."The car went airborne, flipped, and Frederick flew through the sunroof and was probably killed instantly when the car rolled over her. Busch left the car at the scene of the accident without informing anyone."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Busch_IV And then, if that wasn't enough, "Police found Busch at his Tucson townhouse 4 miles (6 km) away, with blood on his body, a sawed-off shotgun, and in a dazed condition exhibiting signs of amnesia." WTF, a sawed off shotgun? Plus he seems to continue to make bad decisions,"Twenty-seven-year-old Adrienne Nicole Martin was found dead at his 6,300-square-foot home with 16 rooms set on 4 1/2 wooded acres in the 2800 Block of South Lindbergh Boulevard in Huntleigh, Missouri after household employee Michael Jung called 9-1-1 at 1:15 p.m.""A toxicology report in February 2011 indicated she had cocaine and oxycodone and the death was in connection with the oxycodone (there was no prescription for the drug) and that the cocaine was at a lethal level. The report further said that a hole in Adrienne's nasal septum indicated "several months to a year of cocaine use." Perhaps its for the best that he formally resigned from the NRA, else Laci might have written about him as an example of the kind of people who are members.
He was a member and that kind of person. There are many such low life's that are NRA members.
Only now, the MOMs are lifting him up as a spokesman for their side.
Not at all.What really "chaps my ass" is gunloon ignorance.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html
Toss in that 5 million is less than 2% of the US population.A staggering minority.As I said, I find gunloon ignorance to be far more annoying than anything else, which is why I usually don't read comments.
I usually don't read comments.Right. This from the guy who posts 20 - 30 comments on one thread. You're a pathetic little man, excuse me, juvenile.orlin sellers
This seems to be some sloppy reporting on the part of the Post. "By contrast, the range of NRA magazines means that three members living in the same household could get three different magazines — and a child could get his or her own magazine as well." Lets start with the caveat that the article Laci cited was about a year and a half old and the data was from 2012. I wanted to add that because what I'm seeing isn't necessarily what was true at the time of the article. Maybe some NRA members can clarify if this was the case back then. If you go here,https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp When you select the subscription you want, you can pick a digital copy of all three magazines. You can also choose to not get those additional magazine mentioned if there are multiple memberships in the same household. But then, Laci makes a second good point. That that even if the five million member number is accurate, its a very small percentage of the total adult (voting) population. Yet elected officials still represent their constituents and oppose federal level tightening of gun restrictions. As I've said before, politicians put more weight in the feedback directly from their district when it comes to making decisions of pending legislation. Guess who they're going to go with if some federal poll contradicts what is happening right in front of them. While the NRA might not be the 600 pound gorilla that some make them out to be. Many more people listen to what they say. Such as their grading of politicians.
I guess that's why politicians include wording in their bills that are an exact copy of NRA wording. Sure, that wording came from their constituents. HA HA HA HA
So some rich .01%er who was handed everything in life and never had to work or achieve anything, opined about something. Awesome. How many armed bodyguards does he employ, and do they limit themselves to 10-round mags?
I guess he would also find it reasonable to ban the private transfer of beer. The same rules we have for an alcohol license should apply in your own home, otherwise it’s a loophole. You want to give your guest a beer- take them down to the nearest licensed alcohol establishment so the server can conduct an official ID check. And we can’t allow private people to make their own check- oh no. There are plenty of bars around, so it’s not like it’s a big inconvenience.
That's brilliant, TS.
Why? Alcohol causes far more deaths than guns. But I guess that's the price we pay to enjoy a little booze,huh?
Those comments belong on the MADD blog. We're talking about guns. But since you mentioned it, if guns were regulated as carefully as alcohol, we'd have fewer incidents of gun misuse.
But we allow private transfers of alcohol. What do you mean by "regulated as carefully"? There’s no prohibited buyers list either. No matter how many DUIs you’ve had, know alcoholics can plop down their money and walk away with as much Busch beer as they like. Can you give me one example where alcohol is regulated more carefully than guns?
Please, do tell us how guns are less regulated than alcohol which you can buy by merely looking old enough, or by flashing your ID.Are you talking about the regulation of the manufacturers? Because both are regulated by the same agency.And both guns and alcohol can be brewed/made at home for personal enjoyment. True, you can't distill alcohol legally at home, but you also can't make a machine gun legally at home.It's really easy to make a comment about the regulation of alcohol, but I don't see how you're going to back that one up. I do look forward to the attempt though.
The legal drinking age compared to the legal gun-owning age, that's one.
Ok, that's a partial point. Handguns are 21, but long guns are 18. So if we changed the age of long gun purchasing to 21 and then scrapped the Brady Bill for background checks and replaced it with only a simple ID check, you would call that “regulating guns more carefully”?
Drinking is limited to 21 just like handgun ownership, carry permits, etc.You get half a point since the legal age to purchase long guns is 18, but only half a point since there are still background checks and paperwork required to purchase the gun at a store.
Is that All you have, Mike? 'Cause that's pretty pitiful--especially considering the support for lowering the legal drinking age to 18.
It is illegal to sell alcohol to anyone unless you have a license to sell alcohol. Yes that includes between private parties. If you pick up a bottle for your buddy and he pays you for it when you get to him, that's an illegal transaction. I wonder how many millions of times that happens every week?