jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association
I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for
youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of
measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I
have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing.
No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't
My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are
you not able to understand a sentence that says:

"Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top
political posturing."
The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy
does nothing to feed your family or protect your home.

Not directly.

But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or
daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but
the intruder.

I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada.
Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't.
While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to
acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher.

Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and
possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they
would find very little resistance in taking Canada.

2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely
make it past the Rockies if they got that far.

A major step in controlling people is to disarm them.


If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you.


The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association
I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for
youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of
measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I
have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing.
No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't
My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are
you not able to understand a sentence that says:

"Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top
political posturing."
The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy
does nothing to feed your family or protect your home.

Not directly.

But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or
daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but
the intruder.

I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada.
Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't.
While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to
acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher.

Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and
possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they
would find very little resistance in taking Canada.

2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not
likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far.

A major step in controlling people is to disarm them.


If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you.


The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


We understand. You are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand
you love your guns but on the other hand you must pretend that it
doesn't bother you that Nobama intends to take your guns away. I
wouldn't want to be in your ballet slippers right now.

"Boater" wrote in message
...


The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch



Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

On Oct 25, 8:38*am, Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association

I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for
youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures
to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for
the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing.

Harry, I suppose you did what the OP requested.

you made a comment.

Even though your comment had nothing to do with the aforesaid
article, nor its content.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch

Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any
huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this
newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.

Tim wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:38 am, Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association
I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for
youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures
to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for
the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing.

Harry, I suppose you did what the OP requested.

you made a comment.

Even though your comment had nothing to do with the aforesaid
article, nor its content.


Well, I don't have any reason to pay attention to the over-the-top
political ravings of the NRA. I've seen nothing rational that convinces
me Obama has the slightest interest in my firearms, certainly not a
poison "letter" from the head of the Illinois NRA.

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any
huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this
newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.




And maybe you are full of schitt.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch

Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any
huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this
newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.


Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them.

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off
a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough
as Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out
for your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.