Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 129

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #91
    busyb555's Avatar
    busyb555
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I hope Barry [he's referring to the President] takes the "kingly" steps he is now talking about. Can you say IMPEACHMENT?


    National Rifle Association President David Keene tells Newsmax that President Obama could be violating the Constitution if he circumvents Congress and imposes gun control by executive order — and his presidency will be “at risk” if he proceeds.

    Keene also says gun control advocates will ultimately fail in their efforts to ban assault weapons, despite Obama’s “rabid advisers” who will push the ban.

    And he asserts that the administration is asking the “wrong questions” in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings and is instead seeking to politicize the tragedy

    Keene assumed the presidency of the NRA and its 4-million-plus members in May 2011. Previously he served as chairman of the American Conservative Union from 1984 to 1991.

    In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, Keene reacts to the president’s warning on Monday that he would take “executive action” to impose gun control.

    “Our concern is the same that most Americans should have whenever a president tries to circumvent Congress, because what the president is really saying is ‘I’m going to do these things myself, and I’m not going to submit them to the representatives of the people.’

    “We don’t know what he’s going to try to do by executive order. There are obviously some things he can’t do and there are some things he shouldn’t be doing, but in order to implement these various changes he’s going to have to go to Congress to get the money to fund it. So there are going to be votes on these things, there is going to be a debate in Congress, and our members and other gun owners, and believers of the Second Amendment, are going to have the right to be heard.”

    Continues at
    https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keene-obama-gun-ban/2013/01/15/id/471594

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  3. TopTop #92
    handy's Avatar
    handy
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    ...the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public.

    https://lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut70.1.html


    Liberals Are NOT Gun-Haters
    Recently by Steven Greenhut: Rose Parade Military Propaganda
    Throughout the blog-o-sphere, I’ve been reading about how much liberals, such as those in the Obama administration and the Democrats who run our state government in California, hate guns. The term "gun-haters" can be found in countless articles written by conservatives about advocates for gun control, with one publication listing myriad "gun-hating" organizations.


    No doubt, the politicians and groups named in these articles and lists are advocates for gun-control measures, but they absolutely, positively do not hate guns. In fact, these folks love guns. Their entire political philosophy is based on their adoration of big guns and small ones, without which they could accomplish none of their goals.

    Readers can see where I’m headed. Our enemies in the gun-rights battle don’t hate or dislike guns per se, but hate the idea of average citizens having access to them. I’ve never heard a gun-controller complain about the way police are now outfitted with military-style uniforms and granted firearms worthy of an invading army. No one seems to complain about the military’s immense firepower and its stockpiling of even nuclear weapons.

    Obviously, I’m playing a semantic game, and semantic games can be annoying. (I get tired, for instance, of readers emailing me to complain that I used the term government "worker" rather than government "employee." I get their semantic point, but government employees do actually work for their money even if the work they do is wasteful, unnecessary and coercive.) My semantic game, by contrast, illustrates a valuable point. This current "gun" debate isn’t about whether guns are good or bad or whether we love them or hate them but about which particular groups of people are entitled to own them.

    The founding publisher of the Orange County Register used to refer to the public-school system as "gun-run schools." His point was that the current school system is based, ultimately on the use of guns by the authorities. If we don’t pay our taxes or follow compulsory-education laws, then well-pensioned officials in uniforms show up at our door with weapons to haul us away to jail. If we resist or run away, those authorities will shoot us.

    I personally don’t like guns, yet I purchased two shotguns and would use them if necessary. It’s no different than my lawn tractor. I don’t particularly like it either – with those dangerous spinning blades that could cut off my legs – but it beats trying to cut my six acres of two-foot-high grass with a scissors. I don’t like target shooting, so the guns are simply a tool. In the popular view, though, I am a gun-lover because I believe in the right of average folks to own them.

    A liberal gun-banner might personally dislike firearms also, but that person’s support of firearm ownership by the authorities ought to put them in the category of gun-lover also. A true gun-hater would be someone who wanted to ban all weapons from all people and all governments – a naïve notion given the unfortunate flaws found in human nature.

    Without the authorities toting guns, liberals couldn’t force us to do all the things they constantly are forcing us to do. Conservatives don’t want us to resist their plans either, but at least they are more consistent – they want the government to be armed to the teeth, but they are willing to allow the rest of us to be armed also, although to a lesser degree.

    Conservatives are aghast whenever some lefty legislator, media celebrity or politician is caught using a firearm (or when their paid bodyguards tote such arms). I agree that such behavior is ridiculous, but it isn’t really hypocritical when a so-called gun-hater is caught depending on a gun for their personal safety. As good progressives, they believe that they are members of an elite that has special privileges the lesser folks should not have.

    I know cops who won’t go anywhere off-duty without a weapon even though they disdain the idea that the rest of us should have similar protections. Never mind that private citizens are more responsible with their weapons than government officials, perhaps because government officials know they have immunities that the rest of us do not enjoy.

    I’m sure the "gun-hater" moniker won’t go away, but let’s at least remind Americans whenever possible that the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public.

    January 16, 2013
    Steven Greenhut (send him mail) is a Sacramento-based writer. Copyright © 2013 Steven Greenhut

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  5. TopTop #93
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by handy: View Post
    ...the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public.
    sure they do. It's obvious on its face, so why deny it? I think they hate puppies too.
    Quote In fact, these folks love guns. Their entire political philosophy is based on their adoration of big guns and small ones, without which they could accomplish none of their goals.... I’ve never heard a gun-controller complain about the way police are now outfitted with military-style uniforms and granted firearms worthy of an invading army. No one seems to complain about the military’s immense firepower and its stockpiling of even nuclear weapons.

    right, that's true too. (I'm sure we all know what their "goals" are, so I won't elaborate that). I think liberals are mostly known for their love of the military and support of the arms race. Wasn't that MLK's big issue? I know he had opinions about the military's involvement in Vietnam, I just forget the details...
    Quote The founding publisher of the Orange County Register used to refer to the public-school system as "gun-run schools." His point was that the current school system is based, ultimately on the use of guns by the authorities. If we don’t pay our taxes or follow compulsory-education laws, then well-pensioned officials in uniforms show up at our door with weapons to haul us away to jail. If we resist or run away, those authorities will shoot us.
    well, to be fair, in eras before guns, the authorities showed up with swords or clubs. The author seems to think authorities were helpless to enforce laws without a disarmed population.
    Quote Conservatives are aghast whenever some lefty legislator, media celebrity or politician is caught using a firearm (or when their paid bodyguards tote such arms).
    they're aghast all the time when reality intrudes on the world-view they've developed independent of observation of actual people instead of the cartoon characters they create in their heads. That seems to be their natural state of being.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  7. TopTop #94
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I would like to encourage everyone to read this article. It comes from a person that is not pro gun, but I feel it is well written and worth reading:

    https://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...googlenews_wsj
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  9. TopTop #95
    handy's Avatar
    handy
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis: View Post
    I would like to encourage everyone to read this article. It comes from a person that is not pro gun, but I feel it is well written and worth reading:

    https://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...googlenews_wsj
    Thank you.

    I thought this was a well written moderate essay. Even read a few pages of comments; also interesting.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #96
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis: View Post
    I would like to encourage everyone to read this article. It comes from a person that is not pro gun, but I feel it is well written and worth reading:

    https://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...googlenews_wsj
    His description of what happened may be accurate, but his attribution of causes and effects is nothing more than his opinion.

    The one that jumps out at me is his observation that homicides tripled from 1976 to 1993. He presumes that it's due to the new gun law. Others have made the case that it coincided with the crack epidemic.

    Some of his other observations pertain to the poor enforcement and implementation of the laws. Again, you take from those observations whatever lessons you will - they aren't necessarily the ones he identifies.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by:

  13. TopTop #97
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I didn't gather anything about poor enforcement of the law being the issue. But if you want to talk about poor enforcement of these gun laws, look at this:

    https://articles.washingtonpost.com/...wayne-lapierre

    This man, on live television, possessed a "high capacity" magazine, in D.C. where that is a felony. Same as here in CA. He will not be charged. Now if I where to do that, I would be charged and made an example of. But it's okay for him.



    I don't think more gun laws are the answer to ending violence. Our society has many issues as a whole, and all of them need to be addressed.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  15. TopTop #98
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    This guy's expressing a point of view that I find very convincing. He's got some pithy quotes, too:

    Quote The NRA fantasy that true safety only derives from an openly armed population is not only indulgent, it ignores both human nature and history. It is a philosophy that offers false comfort to frightened individuals and would do nothing for our collective safety. .... It is a mark of all we have accomplished in our two-and-a-half-century history that we do not settle our disagreements with weapons, nor do we avoid voicing those disagreements for fear of getting shot. Calls for more citizens to regularly carry guns should be viewed with great skepticism by both NRA members and gun-control advocates alike. We need to remember that we are not a state on the brink of failure. The overwhelming majority of us are not in mortal danger and we do not need to be packing heat to protect our honor. A greater public role for private guns would not add to our freedom; it would detract from it.
    https://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/...s-veteran-view
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  17. TopTop #99
    busyb555's Avatar
    busyb555
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    You and Carter have this all wrong. Check out what the Carter study showed and what has happened when guns in the hands of citizens lowered crime, especially violent crime.
    Bruce


    WEAPONS OF CHOICE

    HOW OBAMA'S GUN 'ORDER' WILL BACKFIRE

    Exclusive: David Kupelian on what happened last time a president made same demand

    Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#F7G5STgb5LxeZgZ2.99
    Among the 23 “executive actions” President Obama announced yesterday amidst great fanfare (and shameless exploitation of children) is this:

    “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

    Obama may want to put a hold on that one, until he comes to grips with what happened the last time a U.S. president tried it.

    During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation. They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime.

    So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.”

    There was only one problem.

    Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”

    “When Wright, Rossi and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write,” explained David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.” “Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.”

    Among their many findings:

    • The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.
    • Detroit’s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.

    • Washington, D.C.’s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation’s capital.
    • Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored “more gun control” were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.
    “As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun-control advocates,” said Kopel, “and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.”

    Get autographed copies of both of David Kupelian’s classics: “The Marketing of Evil” and “How Evil Works.”

    Fast-forward to the late ’80s, when the women of Orlando, Fla., were terrified of being sexually attacked, since 33 women had already been raped in just one nine-month period. After people began flocking to gun stores to protect themselves, the Orlando Sun-Sentinel newspaper got together with the police to offer a firearms safety course.

    It was all very well publicized. Everybody knew that in Orlando there were 6,000 women who had handguns and knew how to use them. The result was that in the following nine-month period, there were only three rapes. In addition, crime in general declined. The fact is, Orlando, Fla., was the only U.S. city with a population of over 100,000 that had a reduction in crime that year.

    In fact, it is not only Orlando that experienced a dramatic decrease in crime. After the 1987 Florida right-to-carry legislation, homicide, firearm homicide and handgun homicide rates all decreased. Eight of Florida’s 10 largest cities experienced drastic decreases in homicide rates from 1987 through 1995: Jacksonville, down 46 percent; Miami, down 13 percent; Tampa Bay, down 24 percent; Orlando, down 41 percent; Fort Lauderdale, down 53 percent; Hollywood, down 30 percent; Clearwater, down 21 percent; and Miami Beach down an incredible 93 percent.

    Opponents of Florida’s right-to-carry legislation claimed their state would become known as the “Gunshine State.” But the last quarter century’s actual experience (as of mid-2011, Florida has issued a total of 2,031,106 concealed-carry permits under the 1987 law) proves Florida’s trailblazing program to fight crime has been a tremendous success. As U.S. Sen. Orin Hatch, R- Utah, put it: “The effect of that legislation on state crime rates has been astonishing. The predictions of the gun-control advocates were wrong, flat wrong.”

    But no matter. Politicians and others intent on restricting or eliminating firearms ownership ignore mountains of evidence, virtually all of which points to the same conclusion – that guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens always, in all places and times, result in a safer, more secure and more civilized society.

    Therefore, if the Centers for Disease Control, at Obama’s direction, actually conducts honest research – and that’s a magnum-caliber “if” – it will arrive at the same conclusion as Jimmy Carter’s research team: Their basic premise is wrong.

    As John Lott, former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, crime-statistic researcher and author of the widely cited book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” reiterated today:“Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes things worse.

    Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obam...Tgb5LxeZgZ2.99

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by handy: View Post
    Not at all equal. Safety on the roads occurs because we, as individuals, trust each other to follow agreed upon rules. Force is only applied to those who break that trust, as it should be.

    Confiscation by force, from people who didn't shoot anybody is not in the same ballpark at all.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  19. TopTop #100
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by busyb555: View Post
    You and Carter have this all wrong. Check out what the Carter study showed and what has happened when guns in the hands of citizens lowered crime, especially violent crime.
    Bruce


    WEAPONS OF CHOICE

    HOW OBAMA'S GUN 'ORDER' WILL BACKFIRE

    Consider your source, Bruce.

    Here's WND's full Masthead (Note the arrow that I added):




    The Whistleblower is "WND's highly acclaimed monthly magazine". There's a legitimate discussion about what the best policies are regarding gun control and many other issues, but accusing Obama of being "The First Must Muslim President" is way into the lunatic realm, in that it has no relation to truth and is just intended to inflame baseless fears.

    I strongly encourage you, Bruce, my friend, to unplug from such toxic dis-information. Further, I ask you to stop reposting WND's highly skewed content here.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  21. TopTop #101
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    "Written by a 14 yr old HS Freshman young lady

    My daughter is a Freshman at the Barbara Ingram High School of the Arts. It is a school dedicated to teaching the arts and difficult to get into... all students must go through a tough audition process to be accepted. My daughter is a violinist.
    The school's academic program is all honors classes and students must maintain high grades to be allowed to continue through the years... Needless to say I am proud of the fact she made it in and is an honor student... in fact over the last 12 report cards (MS to HS) he has been a Distinguished Honor student and has always maintained at least Honor Student status from 1st grade through today...
    This is what my daughter chose for the topic of her Freshman English Essay this semester.... I am rather proud of her.
    She only asked that I forward articles I found and would not even let me see the essay until after it was turned in to her teacher.
    The last part about the cake is from an article we found online and a very good analogy on gun control..."


    Gun Control: Betraying the Law Abiding Citizen



    With the recent shootings, it’s no surprise that many people are pushing for stricter gun control. However, I fear that their logic and intentions may be clouded with fear and grief, rather than strengthened with facts. Gun control is possibly one of the worst things that could happen to this country, people who disagree will just have to face the following facts.

    I would first like to bring up that most cries for gun control occur after mass shootings. However, mass shootings are a rare occasion and don’t really kill all that many people when they do occur. From the years 1991 to 2004, 20 mass shootings, happened and just about 210 people died as a result. That’s not that many people. I don’t mean to be cold, but if the number of lives lost is really what legislators care about, then accidental drowning would be a more pressing issue. Falling back on my belief that legislators are blinded by emotion, they suffer from “fallacy of misleading vividness”, which is when an event is so emotionally potent that one begins to overestimate the likelihood of its occurrence. Yes, mass shootings are terrible, but they are hardly one of the largest problems we could address.

    Another problem is that we currently have an administration that had been against gun rights for a very long time. In a 2004 interview Obama said that he would support the renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and that he would “continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws.” A ban on concealed carry laws means that a person may not carry a firearm without having it visible to the public. “There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect.” said economist Dr. John R. Lott. The ironic thing about Obama cracking down on concealed carry laws is that at the time he was a senator in Illinois, a state where it’s already illegal to carry. Coincidentally Chicago has one of the highest gun crime rates.

    All mass shootings in recent years have been the thing that gun control advocates have focused their arguments on. With nowhere else to direct their frustrated emotions, they call upon the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

    Since I’ve mentioned it several times, let me explain exactly what an “assault weapon” is. Now, the term “assault weapon” was chosen to create images of military machine guns, in case you’re unfamiliar with firearms, automatic weapons (a.k.a. machine guns) are already practically illegal to own because they are so heavily regulated. In 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was drafted, there was no “assault weapons” category. Legislators got to create the category. Mainly what they were opposed to were guns that were military-like in appearance. So basically if the gun looks mean they don’t like it. Let’s take the Rueger 10/22, I was given one over the summer, it’s small, manageable, small caliber (.22), cheap to shoot, and has no real recoil. It’s also one of the most popular guns in the country. Now put a hinged stock, and vertical grip on the Ruger 10/22 and you have an assault rifle. With the new stock and grip, nothing about the firearm has changed except appearance. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase don’t judge a book by its cover? Should we make all decisions and laws based on appearance alone?

    Barrel shrouds were also banned. Carolyn McCarthy, a high ranking gun control advocate, after some discussion about her legislation, Tucker Carlson picked ‘barrel shroud’ from her list of banned features, and asked her to explain what it was and why it had to be banned. She admitted that she had absolutely no idea what a barrel shroud was. I’m not trying to personally attack Ms. McCarthy, but why should we allow legislation to be written by people uneducated in the subject they are writing about? A barrel shroud is simply a metal cover that gets placed over the barrel of a gun to prevent the shooter form burning their hands on a hot barrel. While barrel shrouds look mean, they are really just a safety tool.

    Only one part of the ban actually had anything to do with function, this was “high capacity” magazines. This category didn’t exist either. The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines they can kill more people before the police or an armed citizen intervene. Now there are two things wrong with this idea the first is that the people writing this law happen to be the same people who are against concealed carry laws, the second is that reloading takes all of seconds at most, if the shooter has multiple magazines the difference in time is barely noticeable.

    Then there are the voices saying “How many people actually defend their home with an ‘assault rifle’?” I have a story, a fifteen year old boy and his younger sister were home alone, the house happened to have an AR-15 (a gun recently classified as an ‘assault rifle’).Armed robbers tried to break in and the boy defended himself and his sister with the AR-15. The boy defended both his life and his sister’s life with an assault rifle effectively stopping the robbery.

    When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, the results weren’t as the legislators had planned. According to the National Institute of Justice said that the ban hadn’t reduced gun grime or crime involving “high capacity magazines”, and that “assault weapons” were rarely used in crimes even before the ban.” The Center for Disease Control (still not quite sure what they have to do with guns???) found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

    The Brady Campaign, the strongest advocate for gun bans, has revised the definition of mass shooting to be all drive-bys involving a shot fired toward three or more people, regardless of whether anyone was even actually hurt. Leading to their conclusion that there are twenty mass shootings every year. Now is it just me or does this seem like a bit of a hyperbole. Twenty a year is extreme, how come we don’t hear about most of these “mass shootings.”

    From the list of fatal accidents in 2007, the most common being Motor Vehicle Traffic, the least common being Overexertion, Firearms came in sixteenth out of nineteen (19 being Overexertion) . This ought to raise some eyebrows. Now there will undoubtedly be people who are saying well just because they didn’t die, doesn’t mean that a lot of people are not injured by firearms every year. Just for you people, I have more statistics. On a list of Non-Fatal Accident Hospitalizations in 2007, the most common being A Fall, and the least common being Dog Bite, Firearms came in nineteenth out of twenty (20 being Dog Bite). So firearm accidents aren’t really that big of a concern.

    So far throughout this entire essay I haven’t even touched on the second amendment of the Constitution (this is a major surprise even to me). To quote the second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Now many gun control advocates and some federal courts have ruled that the second amendment does not apply to individual citizens, but only to members of militias, which, they assert, are now the state National Guard units. However the definition of militia is “a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.” This is to say that they are not an organized military unit; they are people fighting against the government when said government interferes.

    “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”- Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was in support of gun rights, he lived in a time where he knew that governments become corrupt, and knew that the very same could happen to our government, and wanted the citizens of the United States to be able to defend themselves. “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near a half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possesses over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, Federal Paper 46. Madison addressed the concern that a federal army might try to take over the nation.

    I have one last thing to say before I leave you alone. Let’s say that I have a cake, and it says gun rights in nice green icing on top. I got it from the second amendment and Dick act of 1902. Somebody comes and says, “Give me that cake.” I proceed to say no and we compromise me giving them half of my cake. Let’s call this the National Firearms Act of 1934. So I still have half of my cake, and they come back and ask me for my cake again, I say no and we compromise again, I give them half of what I have. I am now left with a quarter of my original cake. This compromise was the Gun Control Act of 1968. So I sit with my cake, and they come back once again, and take half of what I have again, okay so this is the Machine Gun Ban of 1986. They came back and just take my cake, take several bites (Clinton Executive Orders). They now have about nine tenths of my cake. They keep eating my cake, Lautenberg Act, HUD/Smith and Wesson Agreement, Brady Law, and the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act. And what am I left with, why I have a few crumbs of my cake left. And they have the nerve to sit there and whine and complain and ask me why I’m not being “reasonable” or why can’t we just “compromise.” We are done compromising. We are done being reasonable. If we don’t act now to get our rights back or at least preserve what we still have left, they will take away even the crumbs that we have left.



    Also [ Warning: This link contains obnoxious popup ads - Barry]
    https://www.examiner.com/article/nra...a-media-silent
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  23. TopTop #102
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis: View Post
    "Written by a 14 yr old HS Freshman young lady

    My daughter is a Freshman at the Barbara Ingram High School of the Arts. It is a school dedicated to teaching the arts and difficult to get into... all students must go through a tough audition process to be accepted. My daughter is a violinist....
    Please people, please be transparent with your sources. This reads as though you wrote it, Twisted Minis, despite that you included quote marks. I would prefer you you introduced what you are reposting, and I require that you include the original source URL (http....) to both give credit and for us know what point of view is talking.

    In this case, it appear that this was first posted here (https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=101971) "Maryland's Premiere Shooting Community" and references this https://www.myfavoritepen.com/Media/...%20Citizen.htm.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #103
    busyb555's Avatar
    busyb555
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Barry.

    I would think you would want to air both sides of such an important issue. We can predict what Michael Moore and Bill Airs, Van Jones et all would say, lets have a full and fair discussion my friend. The facts do not support this gun grab by the left. Its really true, if you let regular folks protect themselves the crooks, muggers, and rapists will hide in the hole the come out of. Remove any reason for them to fear and we will be over run, or I guess you could call 911 and hide under your bed. In case you missed it the country is imploding and the criminals are licking their chops. Do you actually think the criminals will turn in their guns if the "citizens" do if they are told to by your pals? I think not, all that will happen is they will be emboldened.

    Lets have a test, you and your dear bride go to central Oakland or maybe Richmond and take a stroll, maybe be carrying some Nordi boxes, and for the fun of it wear a really nice overcoat. Be sure to carry a sign that says "Gun Free Zone". Be sure to post the results so the rest of us can see how cool being without a safety net works out. Point is Barry, the USA is soon to be a war zone and our only safety will come from being armed or let the criminals think we might be armed. I for one do not trust the system as much as you seem to, but unlike you I will read both sides of the arguments. I find it un cool you want me to pick only articles from your approved list of writers. How left of you.

    On the Right.

    Bruce


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    Consider your source, Bruce.

    Here's WND's full Masthead (Note the arrow that I added):




    The Whistleblower is "WND's highly acclaimed monthly magazine". There's a legitimate discussion about what the best policies are regarding gun control and many other issues, but accusing Obama of being "The First Must Muslim President" is way into the lunatic realm, in that it has no relation to truth and is just intended to inflame baseless fears.

    I strongly encourage you, Bruce, my friend, to unplug from such toxic dis-information. Further, I ask you to stop reposting WND's highly skewed content here.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  26. TopTop #104
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by busyb555: View Post
    ...Lets have a test, you and your dear bride go to central Oakland or maybe Richmond and take a stroll, maybe be carrying some Nordi boxes, and for the fun of it wear a really nice overcoat. Be sure to carry a sign that says "Gun Free Zone".
    nice. How would it be better to do the same stroll with our open-carry Bushmaster under our arms??

    the us-vs.-the-animals worldview implied here is pretty disturbing. It's a limiting and limited view of reality, missing a whole lot.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  28. TopTop #105
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I apologize for posting an essay written by a 14 year old HS student without a link, I did not realize that was against the rules. I didn't really see the need to post a link, since it came from a high school student, with a proud father that wanted to share. I thought it was pretty clear that I did not write it, since the first sentence states it was written by a 14 year old female student. I guess it is not okay since I am in favor of the 2nd Amendment?

    I do not understand the mentality behind removing my right to self defense. I am a local tax paying business owner, I shop locally and donate to local charities, I am not a criminal. And I would like to retain the right to defend myself, that right is already quite limited as it is. My father is also a business owner, and both of our businesses deal with a decent amount of cash. Which means we often transport a decent sum of cash to the bank, many people know this (it is rather common knowledge) and that puts us at risk. My business (and me personally), over the past 5 years, has been a victim of crime at least once every year in that period. I am for the most part defenseless against this. Less than a year ago I lost over $50,000 in parts, labor, and tools to theft. I had to be very persistent to get the police to even make a report of the incident, and it took over a week to get them to do so. And then nothing else happened. I know they have more pressing matters on their plate, but that hurt me a lot financially. My father has been mugged twice, right here in Sonoma County. It is likely only a matter of time before that happens to me.

    I fully support taking guns out of the hands of criminals, and those flagged as incapable of safely owning one. But I do not support removing them from law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong, ever. There are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in America today according to the FBI. That number has shot up by 40% since 2009. That is an alarming trend to me. There are things wrong in America that are likely leading the changes like this. It is more common for children to grow up without a father figure now than it ever has been, high school drop outs are at an all time high, jobs are at an all time low for young people. Not all of our violence even comes from gangs.

    About 2 years ago a new low income housing unit opened, within a stones throw of my business. I noticed no immediate change in anything, but within a few months several cars had been broken into in my parking lot. Cars don't stay outside any more. Other tenants have seen increasing rates of car break ins, and gas siphoning has become almost a weekly occurrence. One truck actually had the fuel tank punctured in order to get the fuel out, since it had a locking cap. This is happening right here in Sonoma County, in a good part of town.

    There are a lot of problems out there that need addressing in order to even begin reducing problems like these. Singling out one particular issue will not have much effect. We need to create more personal responsibility in our society, I feel as though I am part of an entitlement generation.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  30. TopTop #106
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    nice. How would it be better to do the same stroll with our open-carry Bushmaster under our arms??
    It wouldn't. You're just making yourself a target. I wouldn't prefer to open carry anything in Oakland, let alone get out of my car.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  31. Gratitude expressed by:

  32. TopTop #107
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by busyb555: View Post
    Barry.

    I would think you would want to air both sides of such an important issue.
    I do, but not from lunatic fear mongers.

    Did you see the article about the origins of the second amendment - so private militias could be formed to prevent the slaves from revolting? I think the second amendment should have been revoked once the slaves were free and all guns be outlawed. Be a real hunter and use a bow and arrow!

    At the moment, no one is talking about outlawing guns, we're just talking about preventing the guns that can create mass carnage quickly. (semi-automatics and high capacity cartridges). What's wrong with that?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  34. TopTop #108
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis: View Post
    ...I do not understand the mentality behind removing my right to self defense. ... And I would like to retain the right to defend myself, that right is already quite limited as it is.......

    About 2 years ago a new low income housing unit opened, within a stones throw of my business.... several cars had been broken into in my parking lot. .
    most of the proposals being considered don't remove your ability to have a weapon for self defense, so it's not necessary to debate whether or not having a weapon does improve your safety. And unless you're advocating the right to shoot people over property crimes, I don't see that you've presented an argument against gun control. Even if you do assert such a right, you can probably shoot them adequately with whatever guns are permitted.

    it's when this debate turns into a sociological one, that we're headed toward mad-maxland and the baddies will run amok unless they fear being shot by the few remaining good guys, that I take issue. And a lot of the fear being expressed about gun control comes down to that point of view. The arguments are against an exaggerated threat, not against any specific proposals that, judging from recent history, will be so watered-down as to achieve little.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  35. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  36. TopTop #109
    WolfCub
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    When you say lets ban all guns do you mean ALL guns or just from the public? Banning ALL guns is a mighty fine idea. The world would absolutely be a far less dangerous place if the military and police were disarmed as well as the people. To disarm the people and not those that have an authority over us *whether legal or not* is a far more dangerous world than the one we live in now. Governments around the world *including ours* sell weapons to people in other countries that are used to kill unimaginable numbers of innocent people, many of which are children. This should be banned.
    There is a pattern with all of the mass shootings that is rarely discussed and virtually non-existent in the mainstream dialogue and that is that every single one of the shooters in these past years has been heavily medicated on psychotropic drugs. The side effects of these drugs can be very dangerous.
    How can we be having such a serious debate without looking at all of the possible contributing factors? We must if positive change is what we really seek.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    I do, but not from lunatic fear mongers.

    Did you see the article about the origins of the second amendment - so private militias could be formed to prevent the slaves from revolting? I think the second amendment should have been revoked once the slaves were free and all guns be outlawed. Be a real hunter and use a bow and arrow!

    At the moment, no one is talking about outlawing guns, we're just talking about preventing the guns that can create mass carnage quickly. (semi-automatics and high capacity cartridges). What's wrong with that?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  38. TopTop #110

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I think pharmaceuticals have a stronger lobby than the NRA.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by WolfCub: View Post
    When you say lets ban all guns do you mean ALL guns or just from the public? Banning ALL guns is a mighty fine idea. The world would absolutely be a far less dangerous place if the military and police were disarmed as well as the people. To disarm the people and not those that have an authority over us *whether legal or not* is a far more dangerous world than the one we live in now. Governments around the world *including ours* sell weapons to people in other countries that are used to kill unimaginable numbers of innocent people, many of which are children. This should be banned.
    There is a pattern with all of the mass shootings that is rarely discussed and virtually non-existent in the mainstream dialogue and that is that every single one of the shooters in these past years has been heavily medicated on psychotropic drugs. The side effects of these drugs can be very dangerous.
    How can we be having such a serious debate without looking at all of the possible contributing factors? We must if positive change is what we really seek.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  40. TopTop #111
    busyb555's Avatar
    busyb555
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Barry.

    Part of the answer is actually in a question. How will you take the guns you speak of from the criminals? Do you think they will just bring them in? If you take away the right to defend your self from the citizens you will soon have them out gunned by the bad people out there. We will all become sitting ducks. And, when the government, any government tries to take away our constitutional rights and start confiscating things, it will be time to defend that freedom they are actually after. Read history, like Patton said if you don't know history its bound to repeat itself, and if you look twice you can see it all over America. And thats the short answer my friend.

    Thanks for asking.

    Bruce


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    I do, but not from lunatic fear mongers.

    Did you see the article about the origins of the second amendment - so private militias could be formed to prevent the slaves from revolting? I think the second amendment should have been revoked once the slaves were free and all guns be outlawed. Be a real hunter and use a bow and arrow!

    At the moment, no one is talking about outlawing guns, we're just talking about preventing the guns that can create mass carnage quickly. (semi-automatics and high capacity cartridges). What's wrong with that?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  42. TopTop #112
    Valley Oak's Avatar
    Valley Oak
     

    The goal...

    The goal:


    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  44. TopTop #113
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Gun Control Now! Amazing essay from 14 yr old

    Of all the extensive reading I've forced myself to do on this topic, my opinion is that this young woman has expressed a high degree of "critical thinking" in her research and expression of the results. I'd be a very proud mom too. I hope that as she becomes an adult, her skills will be influential in areas where this is so needed, and so lacking....

    To have an artistic talent, along with intellectual skill evidenced by this essay, is a unique and wonderful combination that greatly contribute to those of us who are able to hear and receive.

    Thank you "Twisted Minis" for your gift of sharing this with the Wacco community, and broadening the scope of her audience.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis: View Post
    "Written by a 14 yr old HS Freshman young lady

    My daughter is a Freshman at the Barbara Ingram High School of the Arts...
    Last edited by Barry; 01-20-2013 at 11:58 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  46. TopTop #114
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I'm thinking that "allowing" both sides of the spectrum on any controversial issue, will not be influential in changing any critical thinker's perspectives. What seems to happen is that those who are
    already emotionally charged (fearful, re-active
    , controlling) will use irrational arguments/statements to boost their own perspective. There's always comfort in knowing that others agree with our perceptions of reality. We will try to find any figures (persons or statistics) to support our beliefs, so we can emphasize and provide support for the mentality that "we are right; they are wrong". It's not that easy to influenece someone who's not really open to substantiated information. And then there's the caveat to "consider the source".

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by busyb555: View Post
    Barry.

    I would think you would want to air both sides of such an important issue. We can predict what Michael Moore and Bill Airs, Van Jones et all would say, lets have a full and fair discussion my friend. The facts do not support this gun grab by the left. Its really true, if you let regular folks protect themselves the crooks, muggers, and rapists will hide in the hole the come out of. Remove any reason for them to fear and we will be over run, or I guess you could call 911 and hide under your bed. In case you missed it the country is imploding and the criminals are licking their chops. Do you actually think the criminals will turn in their guns if the "citizens" do if they are told to by your pals? I think not, all that will happen is they will be emboldened.

    Lets have a test, you and your dear bride go to central Oakland or maybe Richmond and take a stroll, maybe be carrying some Nordi boxes, and for the fun of it wear a really nice overcoat. Be sure to carry a sign that says "Gun Free Zone". Be sure to post the results so the rest of us can see how cool being without a safety net works out. Point is Barry, the USA is soon to be a war zone and our only safety will come from being armed or let the criminals think we might be armed. I for one do not trust the system as much as you seem to, but unlike you I will read both sides of the arguments. I find it un cool you want me to pick only articles from your approved list of writers. How left of you.

    On the Right.

    Bruce
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  48. TopTop #115
    handy's Avatar
    handy
     

    Re: The goal...

    Of COURSE!! Let's find a couple million muscle bound little girls to run around breaking rifles over their heads! THAT oughta do it! (/sarc)

    Makes as much sense as any of the other gun control nut solutions I've seen suggested here.

    Sad.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza: View Post
    The goal:



    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. TopTop #116
    busyb555's Avatar
    busyb555
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    Ed.

    Cute picture, but it causes me to wonder how you will deal with the crooks, muggers, murderers, and lets not forget the terrorists who also have guns, lots of guns and in case you missed it, we are the enemy they target. I for one think more guns not no guns is the appropriate response in the case of America and now that I think of it, the case of the world today.

    I for one want more not less guns in our society. Remember, guns don't kill people, people do.

    Thanks.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  50. TopTop #117
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  52. TopTop #118
    Twisted Minis
    Guest

  53. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  54. TopTop #119
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: The goal...

    This graphic image of a girl breaking a gun in half is unrealistic, and kinda symbolic of an unrealistic goal, which isn't even stated.

    If the "goal" is to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons, except by those who've been given the authority, or those who don't need anyone's authority what is the result?


    Hopefully those who are in favor of this, have given the "result" of a ban, some thought and extensive research, but I haven't seen it actually identifed except in vague, undefinable terms which I view as "wishful thinking".

    Those who aren't in favor of a ban, seem to come up with historical statistical results from our country and others, and include actual figures when studies have been done by those who wished to prove that gun control works.

    At this point, I'd just like to see someone identify what they BELIEVE the result will be. It could be as simple as "I believe that a ban will result in a substantial reduction of violent gun deaths, (except those caused by "authorized assault weapons) because......" or

    "I believe that without a ban, violent gun deaths will continue to increase, because...."


    Statistics aren't required
    for "beliefs", but it helps to be able to identify, and articulate them, so that others might become "believers" also. Isn't that part of the goal?


    Who's willing to state what they believe will be the results of gun control, and why?



    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza: View Post
    The goal:


    Last edited by Shandi; 01-19-2013 at 02:54 PM. Reason: spelling error
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  55. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  56. TopTop #120
    Shandi's Avatar
    Shandi
     

    Re: Gun Control Now!

    I don't know the answer, but I think that pharaceutical drugs have created monterous diseases and violence. The commercials that state the potential side effects are many times worse than the illness.
    Class action lawsuit awards speak for themselves.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sandoak: View Post
    I think pharmaceuticals have a stronger lobby than the NRA.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  57. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

Similar Threads

  1. La Bala video
    By Valley Oak in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 10:47 AM
  2. Gun Control?
    By Sara S in forum National & International Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 05:33 PM
  3. Gun Toting Liberals
    By someguy in forum WaccoTalk
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 01:27 PM
  4. Why we all need the Democrats to abandon gun control
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 09:47 AM
  5. Gun News
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 09:10 AM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks