1 - 5
Wait. Where's the part of the video where they say I don't need to carry a gun because I can depend on law enforcement to protect me? Note that none of the "experts" in the video will be throwing a duffel bag. They're all carrying.
[an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association] With $50 mil? Really? $10 per NRA member? About $5 per concealed handgun licensee? About $1.25 per licensed hunter? About $0.65 per gun owner? Not shaking in my boots.
In response to:

"Gun Free Zones Are Murder Magnets"

larnold972 Wrote: Dec 17, 2013 1:02 PM
[Gun-Free Zones may work if they are enforced.] That's the problem. The "gun-free" zones Pratt talks about are the ones where the managers put up "no legal concealed carry" signs, then just cross their fingers hoping that no one illegally carries a gun past the signs and starts shooting. But here's a compromise. Pass a law (some states are starting to do this) that property owners who ban legal carry are negligently liable for damages unless they install enough security to prevent illegal carry.
Evidence tags would initiate a chain of custody. Leaving the guns spread out on a table for a couple of hours would break it.
The entire Democratic media machine, from the president's campaign to internet bloggers, held to the "President Obama respects the Second Amendment and won't take your guns away" message. He won, in large part, because enough gun owners trusted him to keep that promise and voted for him. That wouldn't have been necessary, and wouldn't have even worked if there was a strong gun-control movement in the U.S. In fact, since 2007 voters in at least 36 states have REDUCED state gun control laws. If an "assault weapon" ban passes those same pro-gun voters will eviscerate the national Democratic Party. I think President Obama understands that.
1 - 5