Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/21/2016 11:32:21 PM

that I will be damned for asking and which will not likely receive a direct answer.  Yesterday in a Louisville speach NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre condemned the efforts in some states to restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their incarceration.  It is a federal law that convicted felons who have served their time cannot own a gun...a law the NRA wants repealed.  Do any of you see anything wrong with this picture?

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/22/2016 12:59:02 AM

The NRA's position seems completely contradictory to me.   Allow ex-felons to own guns but not to vote?   Where is the logic in that?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/22/2016 9:03:44 AM (updated 5/22/2016 9:05:57 AM)

I hope Wix can explain it to us.  While he is at it, perhaps he can also explain the logic in selling guns to people on the Terrorist Watch List!!

Now another question...how does "Attorney General (or maybe FBI Director) Wayne LaPierre" sound?!

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot the answer is.....
Date:	5/22/2016 9:10:23 AM

very simple.  Since the vast majority of criminals in prison are known criminal dimokraps and since most crime is committed by dimokraps on other dimokraps, it makes perfectly good sense that most dimokraps do not have the basic level of intelligence and common sense to be qualified voters so once they have committed a felony against polite society, they should no longer be considered eligible to vote.

As to the gun situation, it is a well known fact that felons have a propensity to always be felons, AND the vast majority of their crimes are committed on other dimokraps, so why not arm them and reduce the voting dimokrap population.

Makes perfectly good sense to me.  As dimokraps, you and Copper are quite offended, I'm sure, but hey....it is, what it is!

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Here is an answer....
Date:	5/22/2016 9:15:19 AM (updated 5/22/2016 9:15:59 AM)

I was typing when you posted this.....answer is below.  NRA in the AG slot makes more sense that Ja-net Re-no, Eric-the-idiot, or Low-retta.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	As always
Date:	5/22/2016 10:38:31 AM

Never bet against Wix saying something that is so stupid it makes you chuckle and wonder where his mind really is!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	As always
Date:	5/22/2016 12:56:37 PM

Wix is just GF using a different screen name to stir the pot.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	As always
Date:	5/22/2016 2:57:26 PM

Mr H I hope you are right.  It bothers me that there might really be somebody walking around among the day to day folks that is that crazy and probably packing!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/22/2016 4:17:40 PM

No, it doesn't make any sense at all and I doubt the majority of gun owners, NRA members or not, would support such a thing. Are you sure it was a tongue in cheek jab at Obama for letting convicted felons out of jail "if their crimes were oly drugs"?  Wayne La Pierre tends to get out there a bit. 

As far as Atty General - look to Chris Christie and the FBI chief usually comes from law enforcement ranks - or maybe Guiliani?  Since he cleaned up crime in NYC.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/22/2016 4:45:02 PM

Nope, it was not tongue in cheek but a serious concern expressed in a speech Friday in Louisville, KY!  That being said, I agree, LaPierre is a "bit out there" to put it mildly!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Here is another question
Date:	5/22/2016 4:45:15 PM

Jeff Sessions.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot
Date:	5/22/2016 6:51:27 PM

Sorry for the delay, but Goofbutt and I have been out skiing......that fool can't drive a boat worth a hoot, but he has really cold beer.

Now, since I'm dangerously crazy and armed (packin') in your last comment...would you please explain, in great detail, the fallacies and falsehoods in my statement that creates so much anguish in your liberal heart. Where I'm wrong, in your opinion, please furnish documentation to back up your usual false statements.

We're all waiting.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	And your point is??
Date:	5/23/2016 9:31:05 AM

"A well regulated Militia beeing necessary for the securing of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged".  Is not the Secret Service part of a "Well regulated militia"?

The 2d amendment has 2 parts...the left seems to see only the first half and the right only the 2d half.  If you were not brainwashed by the NRA you might put yourself back where the founding fathers were...in a new nation where the force needed to secure its existance consisted of a militarily organized militia made up of volunteers who provided their own weapons.  The 2d Amendment obviously addressed this fact.  It is a matter of interpretation whether it addressed anyone other than those militia volunteers.  To be sure the Supreme Court has said it does...but then the Supreme Court has also approved abortion and same sex marriage!!  I wish we could somehow go back in time to know what was really in the minds of Jefferson and Madison and ask whether they were supportive of the positions of the NRA!!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Yea, its a shame...
Date:	5/23/2016 10:18:01 AM

...that they didn't leave behind any papers, books, letters, thoughts or even some drunken musings defining and explaining their positions on virtually everything.

/sarcasm (OFF)

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Ain't it a shame...
Date:	5/23/2016 10:47:02 AM (updated 5/23/2016 10:47:27 AM)

Actually, they did.  The Federalist papers.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=234

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Ain't it a shame...
Date:	5/23/2016 12:56:16 PM (updated 5/23/2016 12:59:32 PM)

Have you actually read those?  Maybe you need to re read it.  Great argument for Federal power not abusing the states and for the Federal Government having a very small and limited military (l'm sure you are whole heartedly for this inspite of a very different opinion being espoused by Trump and the GOP) and for the states having a larger well armed militia of citizen volunteers.  Not much of an argument for any individual citizen not part of the organized militia being able to carry a concealed loaded pistol into bar!

EVen coming from a right wing pro gun Internet source, it is not supportive of the Gun lobby's agenda.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot
Date:	5/24/2016 7:56:34 AM

The best intentions of the founding fathers have been usurped over time by liberal politicians in Washington who have pulled all power, except to tax, into the Federal gubment.  Can't have dim dumb slugs out in the hinterlands thinking for themselves.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Wixie-poo
Date:	5/24/2016 9:35:13 AM (updated 5/24/2016 9:37:56 AM)

Short bus rider offered this excerpt form the Federalist Papers in a lame defense of everybody owing a gun, not what it actually supports...the power of the individual states vs the Federal state.  You may have tiny bit of truth in what you say concerning the transfer of power to the Feds.  Blaming it all on the "liberals" is not part of that tiny bit of truth!

As for dim bulbs in the hinterlands thinking for themselves...well there is minimal danger of that on this forum!!  Here it's "spout the party line all the time".

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot
Date:	5/24/2016 5:58:48 PM

I'm quite sure you are the only exception on the forum.  All the rest of us toe the party line, but the Archidiot is a true thinking man, who analyses every situation with no preconceived notions, and it just so happens that the dimokrap (socialist/communist) party line coincides with the almighty Archidiot's views.  And to that I say,  BBBBBSSSSSSS.....