Viewing 163 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      Here’s one that will not get locked, unlocked, locked, unlocked, etc. Welcome to both sides of the spectrum. Please attempt to stay on topic.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Thanks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I don’t think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don’t think it makes a significant difference.   

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yes, you can kill people with knives and yes “psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to,” so recent knife attacks do show that point, but that point is not even contested (i.e., I can kill someone with a toaster too) and, more importantly,  a non sequitor to these points: 1) that with 300 million guns there are 30,000 intentional, accidental and suicide deaths by guns and countless injuries by gun  in this country, far more than most comparable countries (there was a recent report that attributes the higher homicide rate in property crimes to the fact that there is easy access to guns); and, 2) guns are generally speaking (and as a matter of common sense - the French learned that lesson from the Germans, right?) much more deadly than knives and many guns don't have a practical social purpose (i.e., a kid can take his parents steak knives (meant to cut food, a daily event fro humans) to school and kill people, but generally speaking he should not be as successful as a similar student with an AR and a 10 round drum clip, neither of which are used to cut food or perform any other daily task)If airline travel was very dangerous because manufacturers were building poor planes the response would not be "well, you can die in a car too, so don't try to fix the planes."  In the same respect, its not a defense of guns that knives can be deadly too.EASY access to guns are a Public Health issue in this country. That has to be balanced against a Constitutional issue and it may be that closing loopholes has little impact BUT even approaching it from that perspective turns the issues in reverse because the ONLY reason a loophole exists in the first place is to SELL MORE GUNS. Since when do profits trump human lives? It's logically flawed to say, for example, that the NRA supports background checks at a brick and mortar building but not at a tent . . or online.  The justification for that inconsistency is simply profits.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      And that was my point from the beginning.    I'm not a "gun advocate" and personally don't overly care about AR or large magazine restrictions.    A lot of nonsense in these threads would be avoided if people respected that opinion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      You might be right about that.  The case for banning ARs is actually the weakest gun control argument.  Lesser so, but still weak on magazines.  That is why I have always said that they are likely to get banned again though because : 1) legislative overreaction and 2) legislators NRA-driven need for symbolic legislation (i.e. to keep the NRA happy while appeasing voters)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      You might be right about that.  The case for banning ARs is actually the weakest gun control argument.  Lesser so, but still weak on magazines.  That is why I have always said that they are likely to get banned again though because : 1) legislative overreaction and 2) legislators NRA-driven need for symbolic legislation (i.e. to keep the NRA happy while appeasing voters)

      So, let's say Congress bans them. Would that involve confiscation?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      You might be right about that.  The case for banning ARs is actually the weakest gun control argument.  Lesser so, but still weak on magazines.  That is why I have always said that they are likely to get banned again though because : 1) legislative overreaction and 2) legislators NRA-driven need for symbolic legislation (i.e. to keep the NRA happy while appeasing voters)

      So, let's say Congress bans them. Would that involve confiscation?

      "Assault rifles" were banned previously without confiscation, right?  I cannot imagine that under any scenario. I think the law would ban sales going forward

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      You might be right about that.  The case for banning ARs is actually the weakest gun control argument.  Lesser so, but still weak on magazines.  That is why I have always said that they are likely to get banned again though because : 1) legislative overreaction and 2) legislators NRA-driven need for symbolic legislation (i.e. to keep the NRA happy while appeasing voters)

      So, let's say Congress bans them. Would that involve confiscation?

      "Assault rifles" were banned previously without confiscation, right?  I cannot imagine that under any scenario. I think the law would ban sales going forward

      Well, with roughly 2.5 to 3.5 million already in circulation; I'm not sure what good a "ban" would do. But, I would love to see the reaction to a "mandatory registration" or "confiscation" of these weapons in the result of a ban.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      So then we are back to the original point that it would really do very little if anything to keep people safer.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So then we are back to the original point that it would really do very little if anything to keep people safer.

      I was agreeing with you Olaf.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      As a gun advocate, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on mental healthcare and universal background checks. However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      You might be right about that.  The case for banning ARs is actually the weakest gun control argument.  Lesser so, but still weak on magazines.  That is why I have always said that they are likely to get banned again though because : 1) legislative overreaction and 2) legislators NRA-driven need for symbolic legislation (i.e. to keep the NRA happy while appeasing voters)

      So, let's say Congress bans them. Would that involve confiscation?

      "Assault rifles" were banned previously without confiscation, right?  I cannot imagine that under any scenario. I think the law would ban sales going forward

      Well, with roughly 2.5 to 3.5 million already in circulation; I'm not sure what good a "ban" would do. But, I would love to see the reaction to a "mandatory registration" or "confiscation" of these weapons in the result of a ban.

      well, I am inclined to agree, certainly in the short term, but that does not mean a ban of "assault rifles" will not happen, I just think that if it does it would not be with any confiscation.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      So then we are back to the original point that it would really do very little if anything to keep people safer.

      I was agreeing with you Olaf.

      I know.  I was posting at the same time.  This is where the discourse has been on this discussion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      Banning alcohol sales worked out great in 1920’s.  The War on Drugs has worked out equally well in the 1980’s-now.Obviously, banning sales on guns would reach the desired scenario for the anti-gun crowd.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Well, that has been my point . .  when the next mass shooting occurs (or several) and if it/they occur with an assault rile or high capacity magazine . . on the one side will be the NRA, which like it or not gun supporters accept as their proxy, and those in Congress who turned down legislation post Sandy Hook.  On the other side will be people like Bloomberg and the Moms he has with him and Dian Feinstein.  Who knows who wins that battle, but do you see either said saying "let's take the interests of the others into consideration"?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      So I am clear, you are agreeing that banning AR, high capacity mags, etc. will probably not keep people safer?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Banning alcohol sales worked out great in 1920's.  The War on Drugs has worked out equally well in the 1980's-now.Obviously, banning sales on guns would reach the desired scenario for the anti-gun crowd.

      Buggsy, universal background checks do not equal banning guns and alcohol and drugs are both highly regulated, guns are not, relatively speaking . . because if the gun lobby  I can go buy an assault rifle and big magazine online right now . . . no background check. Besides that, alcohol and drugs are addictions . . gun ownership is a choice . .  and yet we (as a society) keep on fighting against alcohol and drugs because the societal cost of both is enormous. In other words, they are both Public Health issues.  Easy access to guns is no different, both involve some measure of preventable death and there no perfect solution for any of them . . Preventable_causes_of_death.pngand yet we continue to try  ..  except with guns we don't really try . . .  but not because it is an uphill battle . . because of PROFITS . . . the gun lobby is well-represented and so they fight all restrictions to protect their profits.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Well, that has been my point . .  when the next mass shooting occurs (or several) and if it/they occur with an assault rile or high capacity magazine . . on the one side will be the NRA, which like it or not gun supporters accept as their proxy, and those in Congress who turned down legislation post Sandy Hook.  On the other side will be people like Bloomberg and the Moms he has with him and Dian Feinstein.  Who knows who wins that battle, but do you see either said saying "let's take the interests of the others into consideration"?

      So, basically if AR's and high capacity mags are banned and there's another mass shooting; then Bloomberg and Feinstein will just start "reaching" at that point?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      So I am clear, you are agreeing that banning AR, high capacity mags, etc. will probably not keep people safer?

      If you are asking me, I am not for banning assault rifles, but more to your point I agreed with Spartan long ago that a ban of assault rifles is mostly symbolic because they are not used often. I have also said though, that it is easier to see the government agreeing to ban assault rifles (as they already did once) because assault rifles are very deadly when used and by comparison assault rifles (and large magazines) serve very little purpose beyond sport.But, if one is being fair, the question is not zero sum, it is cost-benefit.  In other words, when kids are gunned down in a school or people are gunned down in a movie theater and images are splashed on the news of killers in body armor and holding an assault rifle . .  the general non-gun owning public look at the "cost" and the "cost" (measured in lives and fear) is over-inflated by the shock and circumstances. But, when the same general non-gun owning public looks to the "benefit," they see a ZERO.  Significantly, that is not true for handguns because even most in the non-gun owning general public understand a women needing a hand gun for protection, a store owner needing a handgun for protection . . etc. . .  etc. . .  etc.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Honestly, I am just looking for a simple yes or no so I am clear.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Well, that has been my point . .  when the next mass shooting occurs (or several) and if it/they occur with an assault rile or high capacity magazine . . on the one side will be the NRA, which like it or not gun supporters accept as their proxy, and those in Congress who turned down legislation post Sandy Hook.  On the other side will be people like Bloomberg and the Moms he has with him and Dian Feinstein.  Who knows who wins that battle, but do you see either said saying "let's take the interests of the others into consideration"?

      So, basically if AR's and high capacity mags are banned and there's another mass shooting; then Bloomberg and Feinstein will just start "reaching" at that point?

      of course they will, that is how legislation works in the US.  It is like a pendulum, swinging too far to both sides because one side hold on to the oppression of another.The very first thing that will happen if Bloomberg has some success (much in doubt) and there is another Sandy Hook (not in doubt at all) . . is Bloomberg and Feinstein and all those anti-gun Moms will start looking for all those that voted against gun restrictions in the wake of Sandy Hook . . . if the tides are truned those same Congress people will swing heavily to the Bloomberg side BECAUSE . .  most are not earnest gun supporter, they are earnest "me" supporters, meaning they are focused on staying in office.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Honestly, I am just looking for a simple yes or no so I am clear.

      I am too.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Well, that has been my point . .  when the next mass shooting occurs (or several) and if it/they occur with an assault rile or high capacity magazine . . on the one side will be the NRA, which like it or not gun supporters accept as their proxy, and those in Congress who turned down legislation post Sandy Hook.  On the other side will be people like Bloomberg and the Moms he has with him and Dian Feinstein.  Who knows who wins that battle, but do you see either said saying "let's take the interests of the others into consideration"?

      So, basically if AR's and high capacity mags are banned and there's another mass shooting; then Bloomberg and Feinstein will just start "reaching" at that point?

      of course they will, that is how legislation works in the US.  It is like a pendulum, swinging too far to both sides because one side hold on to the oppression of another.The very first thing that will happen if Bloomberg has some success (much in doubt) and there is another Sandy Hook (not in doubt at all) . . is Bloomberg and Feinstein and all those anti-gun Moms will start looking for all those that voted against gun restrictions in the wake of Sandy Hook . . . if the tides are truned those same Congress people will swing heavily to the Bloomberg side BECAUSE . .  most are not earnest gun supporter, they are earnest "me" supporters, meaning they are focused on staying in office.

      So, then basically they'll be looking at banning all firearms.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And I believe that a ban will change nothing. And when the next mass shooting happens? Then what? What is the next thing to get banned?

      Well, that has been my point . .  when the next mass shooting occurs (or several) and if it/they occur with an assault rile or high capacity magazine . . on the one side will be the NRA, which like it or not gun supporters accept as their proxy, and those in Congress who turned down legislation post Sandy Hook.  On the other side will be people like Bloomberg and the Moms he has with him and Dian Feinstein.  Who knows who wins that battle, but do you see either said saying "let's take the interests of the others into consideration"?

      So, basically if AR's and high capacity mags are banned and there's another mass shooting; then Bloomberg and Feinstein will just start "reaching" at that point?

      of course they will, that is how legislation works in the US.  It is like a pendulum, swinging too far to both sides because one side hold on to the oppression of another.The very first thing that will happen if Bloomberg has some success (much in doubt) and there is another Sandy Hook (not in doubt at all) . . is Bloomberg and Feinstein and all those anti-gun Moms will start looking for all those that voted against gun restrictions in the wake of Sandy Hook . . . if the tides are truned those same Congress people will swing heavily to the Bloomberg side BECAUSE . .  most are not earnest gun supporter, they are earnest "me" supporters, meaning they are focused on staying in office.

      So, then basically they'll be looking at banning all firearms.

      well, I don't know that BUT I do know that banning all firearms would not stand the Constitutional test.  But, my point has been this:1. from gun owner's side of things, gun policy is controlled by the NRA, not gun owners2. The NRA does not, however, represent gun owners, it represents gun manufacturers, whose interests are different3. unfortunately, reasonable gun owner's rights will likely get crushed by the NRA's overreaching for years (there's no reason for Wayne to be for universal background checks and then now against them . .  accept profits)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Honestly, I am just looking for a simple yes or no so I am clear.

      I am too.

      banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines would, by definition, "make people safer" because those weapons were used to kill people, often in mass, BUT the impact on overall gun deaths/violence in the US would not be as profound as, say, banning handguns because handguns are everywhere and a common tool for death (murder, accident and suicide) and injury.I am not for banning them though. Banning cars would make people safer, but we don't do it because cars serve an important role in society that justifies the death and injury.  Assault rifles and high capacity magazines . .  not so much

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Honestly, I am just looking for a simple yes or no so I am clear.

      I am too.

      I believe he said yes which makes the rest of this discussion pretty much moot since the major contention has seemed to be that said measures are not really going to keep people safer (I know that was my initial response)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Honestly, I am just looking for a simple yes or no so I am clear.

      I am too.

      I believe he said yes which makes the rest of this discussion pretty much moot since the major contention has seemed to be that said measures are not really going to keep people safer (I know that was my initial response)

      You mean on "assault rifles" right? I am not for banning assault rifles and said banning them would be a "mostly symbolic" overreaction, but wasn't this "the rest of the discussion"?

      I don't think guns are the problem, but the state of mind in general of our country.    Psychos are going to find ways to do damage if they want to.    Recent knife attacks in US schools and the college party in Canada further show this point.    You can tighten background checks, close loop holes and even ban AR.  I don't think it makes a significant difference. 

      maybe not

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      His position is that he wants to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines. That’s it. Simple. He even promises faithfully if that were to happen he would never ask for anything more. Ever. Double pinky swear. Never. If some lunatic goes ape spit in a theater w/ a semi automatic handgun and shoots 10 people dead, he SWEARS that even though that would be unfortunate he would NEVER demand that semi auto pistols be banned. HONEST. Will not happen. No way. He's also asking you to ignore all the stories he's copied and pasted in the forum of murders committed with handguns and not read anything into that because he honestly would NEVER ask for anything but the banning of assault rifles and large capacity magazines. (even though he's not able to tell the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle) Hey, that sounds reasonable, right? That's all he wants, so if he gets that, it'll all be good and he'll never ask for anything more.Honest. Double pinky swear. *BTW.. If you can't accept that it could only be because you're all living in FEAR.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      His position is that he wants to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines. That's it. Simple. He even promises faithfully if that were to happen he would never ask for anything more. Ever. Double pinky swear. Never. If some lunatic goes ape spit in a theater w/ a semi automatic handgun and shoots 10 people dead, he SWEARS that even though that would be unfortunate he would NEVER demand that semi auto pistols be banned. HONEST. Will not happen. No way. He's also asking you to ignore all the stories he's copied and pasted in the forum of murders committed with handguns and not read anything into that because he honestly would NEVER ask for anything but the banning of assault rifles and large capacity magazines. (even though he's not able to tell the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle) Hey, that sounds reasonable, right? That's all he wants, so if he gets that, it'll all be good and he'll never ask for anything more.Honest. Double pinky swear. *BTW.. If you can't accept that it could only be because you're all living in FEAR.

      did we get to page 2 before a member of the Band of Misfits showed up posting about Vin?EDIT:  we did woo hoo . . . progress

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I wanted to post about banning vehicles, then I realized, how would you be able to drink and drive and cause property damage? Since this thread is all about serving your personal wants and desires at the expense of everyone else there’d be no point in bringing it up."I was a victim of gun crime""Color me shocked"Hahaha!Remember that Psycho Boy? lol.We are all still laughing, b*tch.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Christ, so much for that…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      That’s what happens w/ Vin. You must be new around here, it appears as if you’re surprised by this.I'll guarantee you, you're the only one that is.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Christ, so much for that...

      as you can see, part of the "Band of Misfits" play book is to blame me for their actions . . because  . .  you know . .  I secretly control all of them. lol

      That's what happens w/ Vin. You must be new around here, it appears as if you're surprised by this.I'll guarantee you, you're the only one that is.

      as for Millich's weird guarantee, I have been talking to Spartan for months.  I believe Spartan served his country and is a hard-core gun owner and a bit of a "survivalist" if that is the right word (sorry if not, Spartan). Like you, he is one who has a true interest in guns, but he is not defensiveThe truth is that the Band of Misfits are mostly what the name implies, guys who get suspended etc., and they mostly don't like any discussion of gun control. They will blame me, but the obvious response is why don't they carry on their nonsense in the threads I post about Malaysian Air, the Ukraine, Obamacare, Syria or any of the many other topics?  Its really about guns . . . and that they don't like when people push back.  Millich -- who just got kicked off the Insider board - is always trying to settle scores with because he doesn't like that I don't think the federal government brought down the NY trade center buildings . . . right Millich?your thread is all but destroyed, sorry

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Let’s try this one more time. STAY ON TOPIC.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      And he’s  gone off on Spartan as well. Until I pointed that to him, shamed him actually, now all of a sudden he wants to rewrite history. It's not going to workEveryone has seen it. I'll tell you right now if anyone was under any impression that this thread wasn't going to end up in anything other than another one of Psycho Boy's melt downs they'd only be fooling themselves. If one doubts that then all one need do is look at the amount of posters that still post to this board as compared to a year ago. He'll melt down again, and yes, I will guarantee it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      EDIT:  see my point ^^^, Durango (Millich) cant resist

      Let's try this one more time. STAY ON TOPIC.

      You just have to ignore them unfortunately. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

        Millich -- who just got kicked off the Insider board - is always trying to settle scores with because he doesn't like that I don't think the federal government brought down the NY trade center buildings . . . right Millich?

      There you go! Haha!Two lies within 2 minutes. I told you it wouldn't take long.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      “You just have to ignore them unfortunately. “Boom! Three in a row........."It's not me, I swear! it's everyone else on the board."LOL..Classic Psycho Boy material flowing hard. :P

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals that somehow the gov’t is taking away their god given rights.BTW, I am fine with gun ownership and defending one's "castle".  I don't want to take your guns away but I would like to make it harder for people to acquire them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals that somehow the gov't is taking away their god given rights.BTW, I am fine with gun ownership and defending one's "castle".  I don't want to take your guns away but I would like to make it harder for people to acquire them.

      I agree

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      as I mentioned in another closed thread, the battle ground now is women.  Bloomberg  brought women’s groups into the Everytown group.  Here’s the NRA pushing back (i.e., trying to bring women into the gun lobby):http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/27/nra-set-to-battle-bloombergs-gun-control-lobby-to-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Just read the 3 pages and we have had a relatively nice discussion here. Let’s not go off the rails now. Deep breaths everyone!!! :)For the record Vin it's my wife who is the bigger survivalist, I simply take advantage of the situation to get stuff I want. Like new guns or really cool and expensive sights etc. My next "need" is some night sights :) But, to be frank, having gone through a few hurricanes and stuff, I saw how things could go to hell in a hell basket pretty quick so could be described as a bit of prepper. In that respect you are pretty much spot on.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Just read the 3 pages and we have had a relatively nice discussion here. Let's not go off the rails now. Deep breaths everyone!!! :)For the record Vin it's my wife who is the bigger survivalist, I simply take advantage of the situation to get stuff I want. Like new guns or really cool and expensive sights etc. My next "need" is some night sights :) But, to be frank, having gone through a few hurricanes and stuff, I saw how things could go to hell in a hell basket pretty quick so could be described as a bit of prepper. In that respect you are pretty much spot on.

      lol, maybe survivalist was the wrong word choice, but I think you and DH have a lot in common.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals that somehow the gov't is taking away their god given rights.BTW, I am fine with gun ownership and defending one's "castle".  I don't want to take your guns away but I would like to make it harder for people to acquire them.

      I agree. I think bans are pointless, but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals that somehow the gov't is taking away their god given rights.BTW, I am fine with gun ownership and defending one's "castle".  I don't want to take your guns away but I would like to make it harder for people to acquire them.

      The NRA of today is as much a product of the political environment that we have as much as the political discourse. That is him who shouts the loudest and the longest wins. The loudest invariably being who can scare the crap out of people the most. Watch the talk shows, do they actually debate the issues or do they simply try to shout each other down? The NRA simply moved with the times. Until that changes ... ?Behind the scenes the NRA still does most if not all it used to do. That is why I am a member.And for the record, those who push for "common sense reforms" usually have a record of wanting to ban guns period, so yes, the messenger counts. What they say, and knowing what they mean are two totally different animals.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Just read the 3 pages and we have had a relatively nice discussion here. Let's not go off the rails now. Deep breaths everyone!!! :)For the record Vin it's my wife who is the bigger survivalist, I simply take advantage of the situation to get stuff I want. Like new guns or really cool and expensive sights etc. My next "need" is some night sights :) But, to be frank, having gone through a few hurricanes and stuff, I saw how things could go to hell in a hell basket pretty quick so could be described as a bit of prepper. In that respect you are pretty much spot on.

      lol, maybe survivalist was the wrong word choice, but I think you and DH have a lot in common.

      Well, we do have a property in the middle of nowhere that we frequent on a regular basis. I just like taking my kids up there, my wife sees it as a bug out location.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Yeah, is that right? How so? What is it you're looking to accomplish? What exactly do you want in the way of tightened restrictions?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      No doubt political discourse today sucks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Yeah, is that right? How so? What is it you're looking to accomplish? What exactly do you want in the way of tightened restrictions?

      All firearms should be subject to a waiting period. A more extensive background check. All private sellers must have a current FFL license.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Just read the 3 pages and we have had a relatively nice discussion here. Let's not go off the rails now. Deep breaths everyone!!! :)For the record Vin it's my wife who is the bigger survivalist, I simply take advantage of the situation to get stuff I want. Like new guns or really cool and expensive sights etc. My next "need" is some night sights :) But, to be frank, having gone through a few hurricanes and stuff, I saw how things could go to hell in a hell basket pretty quick so could be described as a bit of prepper. In that respect you are pretty much spot on.

      lol, maybe survivalist was the wrong word choice, but I think you and DH have a lot in common.

      Well, we do have a property in the middle of nowhere that we frequent on a regular basis. I just like taking my kids up there, my wife sees it as a bug out location.

      Nothing wrong with being a "prepper".  ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Yeah, is that right? How so? What is it you're looking to accomplish? What exactly do you want in the way of tightened restrictions?

      All firearms should be subject to a waiting period. A more extensive background check. All private sellers must have a current FFL license.

      Now tell us. What exactly will this accomplish and please be specific.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Yeah, is that right? How so? What is it you're looking to accomplish? What exactly do you want in the way of tightened restrictions?

      All firearms should be subject to a waiting period. A more extensive background check. All private sellers must have a current FFL license.

      Now tell us. What exactly will this accomplish and please be specific.

      Perhaps a middle ground with gun control advocates. Something both parties can agree on.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      but they need to tighten restrictions.

      Yeah, is that right? How so? What is it you're looking to accomplish? What exactly do you want in the way of tightened restrictions?

      All firearms should be subject to a waiting period. A more extensive background check. All private sellers must have a current FFL license.

      Now tell us. What exactly will this accomplish and please be specific.

      Perhaps a middle ground with gun control advocates. Something both parties can agree on.

      You want to appease the emotionally outraged.Got it.  ::)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      a maxim in my line of work is that parties who make no meaningful effort to find common ground have no right to complain when a third-party dictates where they stand

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      A shared understanding in the universe of common sense is that those demanding change are required to articulate at least a single logical argument lest their motives be called into question.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      strangely, court dockets are filled to the brim with parties who think their opponent has not articulated a single logical argument ;-)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      No doubt directly proportional to the amount of incompetent legal representation they’ve employed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      obviously a gun is just as dangerous if sold from a building or a  car trunk, so what’s the argument against universal background checks?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Is that what you want? Universal background checks? Tell us, what is it you are hoping to accomplish with that and please be specific showing how that will help in achieving your objectives.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      general question, you dont have to answer

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I’m not advocating anything so there’s nothing to answer. You on the other hand do want change but you don’t seem to want to tell us why.What is it you're afraid of? I guess since you've had this epiphany we've all become friends now, so there's nothing for you to hide anymore. Go ahead. Tell us about this plan of yours, what is it and what is it you hope to accomplish with this new plan?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You on the other hand do want change but you don't seem to want to tell us why.What is it you're afraid of? I guess since you've had this epiphany we've all become friends now, so there's nothing for you to hide anymore.

      :D

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Apparently he’s been struck by another bout of performance anxiety.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Apparently he's been struck by another bout of performance anxiety.

      any thoughts on the justification for less  than universal background checks?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      No I have no reason to contemplate that.  I suppose if I wanted something in its place it wouldn’t be  a question I’d have answered for me. Since you’re the one that cant seem to answer I guess we all agree that you’re fine with the way things are too. I’m sure you must be relieved from having to spend all your days on this board for something that turned out to be so silly.Congratulations, you've hard a real breakthrough. Two epiphanies in one day, you must be so happy.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      No I have no reason to contemplate that.  I suppose if I wanted something in its place it wouldn't be  a question I'd have answered for me. Since you're the one that cant seem to answer I guess we all agree that you're fine with the way things are too. I'm sure you must be relieved from having to spend all your days on this board for something that turned out to be so silly.Congratulations, you've hard a real breakthrough. Two epiphanies in one day, you must be so happy.

      ok, thanks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      If I had known who he was I would have shot him.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Just read the 3 pages and we have had a relatively nice discussion here. Let's not go off the rails now. Deep breaths everyone!!! :)For the record Vin it's my wife who is the bigger survivalist, I simply take advantage of the situation to get stuff I want. Like new guns or really cool and expensive sights etc. My next "need" is some night sights :) But, to be frank, having gone through a few hurricanes and stuff, I saw how things could go to hell in a hell basket pretty quick so could be described as a bit of prepper. In that respect you are pretty much spot on.

      lol, maybe survivalist was the wrong word choice, but I think you and DH have a lot in common.

      Well, we do have a property in the middle of nowhere that we frequent on a regular basis. I just like taking my kids up there, my wife sees it as a bug out location.

      Nothing wrong with being a "prepper".  ;)

      that's the word I was looking for

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      to the earlier discussion on assault weapons and whether they have become the “weapon of choice” for a deranged mass killers who want a Rambo-like exit from this world:FedEx Facility Shooting Prompts Massive Response, Shooter Found Dead"A package handler with an assault rifle and bullets strapped to his chest “like Rambo” injured six people at a Georgia FedEx facility early Tuesday before he was found dead of an apparent suicide, authorities and witnesses said.The male suspect died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound during the workplace shooting in Kennesaw, north of Atlanta, and was found inside the FedEx facility's loading dock, reported NBC affiliate WXIA-TV.The six victims range from ages 19 to 52, and three remained in critical condition Tuesday afternoon, said Dr. Michael Nitzken, of Wellstar Kennestone Hospital. One of them required advance life support.Those with critical injuries suffered multiple gunshot wounds, while others had “peripheral damage,” Nitzken said. One person was released.Cobb County police spokesman Mike Bowman said officers were still “sweeping” the area around the building Tuesday morning for any “secondary devices.” The suspect was identified only as a male employee of FedEx.Police were first called to the scene at 5:44 a.m., prompting a lockdown of the facility on Airport Road and more than 100 officers to swarm the scene.A clerk said the gunman was dressed in black, and was carrying a foot-long knife, an assault rifle and bullets secured to his chest “like Rambo.”I mean he looked like he was heading into war,” FedEx clerk Liza Aiken told reporters. “As soon as I saw him, I ran the other way. I ran and made sure that people upstairs were gone.”he had a knife too  .  . . full disclosure  ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      One can see clearly how much he wants it to end.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      One can see clearly how much he wants it to end.

      what's "it"?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the headlines focus on the assault rifle, but at least one source attributes the injuries to a shotgun, which, if true, sort of makes DH’s point (and I guess mine to a lesser extent):Six people were rushed to a local hospital, with injuries ranging from minor to very serious. Doctor Michael Nitzken (pictured above) of WellStar Kennestone Hospital announced at an 11:30 a.m. news conference that three people were in critical condition, including two whose injuries are considered life-threatening. The two victims with life-threatening injuries are a 28-year-old man and a 52-year-old woman, officials said. The victims' names have not been released. A 22-year-old man is also in critical condition and a 38-year-old man is in stable condition. A 42-year-old woman was treated and released, and a 19-year-old man was treated and has a pending release. The victims all suffered multiple wounds from what appeared to be a shotgun.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      It's it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If I had known who he was I would have shot him.

      who is "he"?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      could also be a flawed witness statement:9:55 a.m.: FedEx employee Liza Aiken saw the shooter, a 19-year-old man she said was a loader, just before she heard gunfire. Aiken was doing address corrections on some packages when she said she “heard a clink.“I looked to my left. I saw him standing there and the knife was on the ground. He dropped his knife. He had an assault rifle. He had bullets strapped to his chest like Rambo. I mean he looked like he was heading into war. As soon as I saw him, I ran the other way. I ran and made sure that people upstairs were gone. He was in all black. I think he had a camo vest. He had an assault rifle and bullets strapped to his chest.”Aiken said she previously reported the shooting suspect to her superiors. She said he pointed a work laser in her eye.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      One can see clearly how much he wants it to end.

      Yes clearly

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      the headlines focus on the assault rifle, but at least one source attributes the injuries to a shotgun, which, if true, sort of makes DH's point (and I guess mine to a lesser extent):

      Not sure what "point" you are referring to, but it sounds like the one that has been made by everyone, but you for the past year plus. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the headlines focus on the assault rifle, but at least one source attributes the injuries to a shotgun, which, if true, sort of makes DH's point (and I guess mine to a lesser extent):

      Not sure what "point" you are referring to, but it sounds like the one that has been made by everyone, but you for the past year plus.

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts. However, I do agree that the MEDIA has put a bad label on these weapons.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts.

      at least he's backing off when facts and stats are presented.  That's a step in the right direction.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts. However, I do agree that the MEDIA has put a bad label on these weapons.

      I meant in this thread, that  banning them would not do much:

      However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      Looking back though it looks like you may have been saying that it would not do much because so many were out there already (2.5 million roughly?), but the more common argument is that they aren't used often. Hand guns are used more often, which I think may have been your point in another thread

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts.

      at least he's backing off when facts and stats are presented.  That's a step in the right direction.

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)on the weapon choice issue, DH is right that hand guns that there is objective evidence that hand guns are used more often in mass shootings since 1982 (I think).  I think Spartan made the same point, so that part I accept.  The difference is only whether that is due to availability or choice. Hand guns are widely available especially going back to '82, but obviously there is a connection between the mass murder/suicide guy and "assault rifles" because, as I stated earlier, they fit the MO . . . body armor, bullet straps etc.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts. However, I do agree that the MEDIA has put a bad label on these weapons.

      I meant in this thread, that  banning them would not do much:

      However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      Looking back though it looks like you may have been saying that it would not do much because so many were out there already (2.5 million roughly?), but the more common argument is that they aren't used often. Hand guns are used more often, which I think may have been your point in another thread

      My point has ALWAYS been that "assault rifles" aren't the problem. In a different thread you stated that they were "the preferred weapon" for mass shooters. I proved that wrong. I do agree with you, that "assault rifles" fit a certain profile and makes it easier for the media to target them. Handguns are used more often, but that's where we hit a slippery slope.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH's point was that "assault rifles" are used infrequently and I agree and have for a long time.  My point was that assault rifles still stand a better chance of being banned because of symbolism and because the general non-gun owning public associated them with this type of event. That makes sense even if it is unfair. It doesn't really make sense for a suicidal guy going out in a blaze of glory, a guy who takes the time to dress up like Rambo, to use a 6 shooter, right?  The "assault rifle" is part of the get up . . . for goodness sake it is sold precisely for its military-like qualities, that is the SELLING POINT . . . appealing to a guy who is going out this way . . .  let alone the fact that more ammo is good for killing  a lot of people . . .  again, common sense, even if unfair in practice.

      My point was that "assault rifles" were not the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. You disagreed until I backed up my statement with statistics and facts. However, I do agree that the MEDIA has put a bad label on these weapons.

      I meant in this thread, that  banning them would not do much:

      However, banning of AR's and magazine restriction will not solve the ACTUAL problem.

      Looking back though it looks like you may have been saying that it would not do much because so many were out there already (2.5 million roughly?), but the more common argument is that they aren't used often. Hand guns are used more often, which I think may have been your point in another thread

      My point has ALWAYS been that "assault rifles" aren't the problem. In a different thread you stated that they were "the preferred weapon" for mass shooters. I proved that wrong. I do agree with you, that "assault rifles" fit a certain profile and makes it easier for the media to target them. Handguns are used more often, but that's where we hit a slippery slope.

      well, and I have agreed, primarily after looking at information provided by Spartan, that they are not really "the problem." They are easy targets for anti-gun people. I also agree on the slippery slope

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      That information was presented to you at the beginning. You dismissed it. Now, after a year long crusade, suddenly you see the light …but you’ll be right back to the same crap again next week.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      That information was presented to you at the beginning. You dismissed it. Now, after a year long crusade, suddenly you see the light ...but you'll be right back to the same crap again next week.

      here comes the parade of nonsense. . . . ridiculous Illuminator.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      Parade of nonsense = a years long crusade with no realistic objective, no particular point to be made, and selective admittance of evidence.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Parade of nonsense = a years long crusade with no realistic objective,

      and yet, if you accept the premise of a "year long crusade" you and your buddies have come along the whole time despite the lack of a "realistic objective" . . . and I even converted you . . . though you're loathe to admit it.  Remamber, if I had a "crusade" it was "more guns=more gun violence" or, stated in the inverse, "less guns = less gun violence,"  . . . .a point you agreed with:

      Less guns in the wrong hands decreases gun violence.

      Anyone telling you that "MORE GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE" is just flat out wrong, and likely an inbred, bucktoothed halfwit with penis breath and a mullet.

      lmao  -- -  frame it

      eventually . . . though you sure don't like to admit it  ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      Less guns in the wrong hands decreases gun violence. More guns in the right hands also decreases gun violence. Taking away everyone’s rights and forcing them to live under government occupation would also decrease gun violence.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      ^^^What I actually said. At no time have I ever agreed with the all encompassing "less guns = less violence" because it's not true. What I was pointing out was your dishonest frame of the question. For instance, less rolling pins would mean less rolling pin violence. Would there be less violence overall? No, not in the least. But your approach to this topic has been dishonest from the beginning.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      The most idiotic part of your little game is that, from the beginning, from your very first thread on the subject, my stance on gun control is that it should be aimed at keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. Less guns in the wrong hands is the objective. Less guns in general is a completely different objective. And I tried for a long time to have an honest straightforward discussion on the subject but, like most others, came to realize such a thing was impossible with a deceitful little turd like you. So I stopped taking you seriously. Never again will I attempt to converse with you as an equal – because you simply are not.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Never again will I attempt to converse with you as an equal - because you simply are not.

      well, I've never been banned from a free football message board, so maybe you have a point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      my stance on gun control is that it should be aimed at keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. Less guns in the wrong hands is the objective.

      my stance on the day is that the sun should rise in the east and set in the west.  . . . . ???gun control is aimed at keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, but the "wrong hands" is not just hardened criminals, sometimes the "wrong hands" are those of a 4 year old who kills her self, sometimes the "wrong hands" are the hands of a drunk boyfriend who shoots his girlfriend out of anger, sometimes the "wrong hands" are the hands a of a 30 year decorated veteran cop with a CWP . . . who shoots a guy over texting . . . . sometimes the "wrongs" are the hands of a mother who tries to appease her semi-autistic son with a passion for gun games.guns are sold for PROFIT.  The reason there are way more guns in this country than legitimate gun owners is . . .  you guessed it . . . they are PROFITABLE . . . nearly every loophole in gun laws was the result of a manufacturer-driven lobby . . . . not an effort to get more guns in the right hands.  The shear number of guns in this society contribute to its disproportionate level of gun violence . .  that means, by simple extension of logic that GUN PROFITS  contribute to this country's disproportionate level of gun violence. . . . I am all for freedom and the 2nd Amendment, but I am not for just allowing PREVENTABLE death and injury to occur just so a small group of companies can make a bit more money

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      I did not know that things were sold for profit. Thanks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I did not know that things were sold for profit. Thanks.

      see, you learn something new everyday

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals.

      Wayne at the recent NRA convention:"We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all."lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I also think that the NRA and their basic philosophy preys on the fears of certain individuals.

      Wayne at the recent NRA convention:"We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all."lol

      Reasons why I'm a prepper.  ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have been criticized for suggesting that fear leads some people to reject gun restrictions (e.g. “If I agree to that they will eventually come take my guns”). Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?Lol. I am guessing a convenient double standard applies.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      pul-lease . .. .  but even if you think that: why are you here choosing to post ABOUT me rather than on Wayne's comments on the double standard about "fear" or anything else gun-related in this thread?  see the point?  what you perceive to be my "hypocrisy" does not FORCE you to post about me, right?  You made a free choice of your own free will . . . just like you made a free choice to stalk me . .  to create that thread about me . . etc.Hey, but why should today be any different right . . . . basically all you do is post about me, right?  Let's see04/30/2014 08:37:39 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/30/2014 08:34:41 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 14:56:11 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 14:51:57 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 14:49:15 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:59:06 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:57:30 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:51:20 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 10:01:07 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 09:34:36 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove at least you locked the thread though, so thank you for that and if you think "Vin Loses" that is great.  I have never expected to change your mind or anyone's mind . . .  none of this is about "winning" or "losing"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The FedEx shooting sets up an interesting debate because Kenesaw GA is a city that it lauded by pro gun people and the NRA for having an ordinance that requires everyone to be armed. It is a city that subscribes to Wayne’s logic that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  and yet nothing stopped this guy . . . except himself.Conversely, I believe (but do not know) that FedEx has a no guns policy at its facilities and, in fact, I believe an unarmed security guard was the first shot.should be fodder for plenty of discussion

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      “what you perceive to be my “hypocrisy” does not FORCE you to post about me, right?”And what you perceive to be me "talking about you" and not the topic does not FORCE you to post about me or the rest of the people who you have tried to argue against for over a year on this topic.Another example of your hypocrisy.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      pul-lease . .. .  but even if you think that: why are you here choosing to post ABOUT me rather than on Wayne's comments on the double standard about "fear" or anything else gun-related in this thread?  see the point?  what you perceive to be my "hypocrisy" does not FORCE you to post about me, right?  You made a free choice of your own free will . . . just like you made a free choice to stalk me . .  to create that thread about me . . etc.Hey, but why should today be any different right . . . . basically all you do is post about me, right?  Let's see04/30/2014 08:37:39 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/30/2014 08:34:41 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 14:56:11 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 14:51:57 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 14:49:15 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:59:06 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:57:30 Re: Gun Control Thread Pirate's Cove 503 04/29/2014 13:51:20 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 10:01:07 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove 1356 04/29/2014 09:34:36 Re: Brilliant! Pirate's Cove at least you locked the thread though, so thank you for that and if you think "Vin Loses" that is great.  I have never expected to change your mind or anyone's mind . . .  none of this is about "winning" or "losing"

      We all know VIN LOSES.    An entire post about me with a reference to the thread that you wanted to die, but couldn't control yourself enough to stop posting in it.  Now you could not control yourself enough to not comment about it here.#hypocrite

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And what you perceive to be me "talking about you"

      perceive?

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      Hey, but as I have posted here 100 million times, I am certainly happy to move on to ON TOPIC discussions, so what do you think about the FedEx shooting happening in a xity like Kenesaw?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I don’t know if anyone here cares about “Wayne”.  I know that several people including myself have said that they did not.  Another example of the dishonesty displayed in this discussion which drove it to mudslinging and continue to make it impossible to have a decent conversation about.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      And what you perceive to be me "talking about you"

      perceive?

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      Hey, but as I have posted here 100 million times, I am certainly happy to move on

      You've said it plenty of times, but you continue to fail to do it ..........

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't know if anyone here cares about "Wayne".  I know that several people including myself have said that they did not.  Another example of the dishonesty displayed in this discussion which drove it to mudslinging and continue to make it impossible to have a decent conversation about.

      1. because I post about Wayne does not mean you have to "care" about Wayne and as for "dishonesty" when  have I ever said "Olaf cares about Wayne?"2. Like it or not Wayne is the spokesperson for gun interests and for the entity that drives gun legislation in this country so it is relevant to a "gun control" discussion that Wayne views the US as some sort of dystopic society where everyone must arm themselves.  But again, if the topic doesn't matter to you then fine, right?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And what you perceive to be me "talking about you"

      perceive?

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      Hey, but as I have posted here 100 million times, I am certainly happy to move on

      You've said it plenty of times, but you continue to fail to do it ..........

      all evidence to the contrary.  Here, I will prove that POINT . . .  again . . .  . go ahead and have the last word ABOUT ME Olaf . . . after that, I will look forward to your never posting ABOUT ME again, thanks. Now, back on topic . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Would you 2 please go start your own thread? This sh*t is ridiculous. You BOTH are obsessed with each other.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I have been criticized for suggesting that fear leads some people to reject gun restrictions (e.g. "If I agree to that they will eventually come take my guns"). Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?Lol. I am guessing a convenient double standard applies.

      This comment is aimed at the people who have argued against your point and it lumps them in with Wayne's opinion while trying to take a jab at them AGAIN despite saying you want to move on.  I have said I do not care about Wayne and the NRA.  I know Bucfusious has said it.  I have never seen biggs or durango defend him/them either.  SO are you taking a jab at Spartan or DH (who might support the NRA), the two guys who you claim are willing to have a decent discussion or are you taking a jab at imaginary people that do support the NRA, but never have come to this board.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Would you 2 please go start your own thread? This sh*t is ridiculous. You BOTH are obsessed with each other.

      I presume we just ended it though, subject to Olaf having the last word, so we don't have any need to start are own thread (Olaf just closed one) and hopefully we can all stay on topic

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Would you 2 please go start your own thread? This sh*t is ridiculous. You BOTH are obsessed with each other.

      I'm not obsessed with shiz.  I tried to stay on topic and the jackass once again starts his b$.    People told you how it would go.  The guys completely incapable of having an honest discussion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      And what you perceive to be me "talking about you"

      perceive?

      as is your posting about me rather than the topic . . . .  oh wait . . .  status quo . . . .  nevermind  :)

      Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?

      #hypocrite

      Hey, but as I have posted here 100 million times, I am certainly happy to move on

      You've said it plenty of times, but you continue to fail to do it ..........

      all evidence to the contrary. 

      lying hypocrite

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have been criticized for suggesting that fear leads some people to reject gun restrictions (e.g. "If I agree to that they will eventually come take my guns"). Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?Lol. I am guessing a convenient double standard applies.

      This comment is aimed at the people who have argued against your point and it lumps them in with Wayne's opinion while trying to take a jab at them AGAIN despite saying you want to move on.  I have said I do not care about Wayne and the NRA.  I know Bucfusious has said it.  I have never seen biggs or durango defend him/them either.  SO are you taking a jab at Spartan or DH (who might support the NRA), the two guys who you claim are willing to have a decent discussion or are you taking a jab at imaginary people that do support the NRA, but never have come to this board.

      Olaf, thanks for the comment. I was taking a jab at the double standard.  I thought that was pretty clear from my comment, but if not my apologies.  It does not lump them in with anything. In fact, the opposite is true. I was inviting those who have criticized me for mentioning fear to respond to Wayne -- the mouthpiece of the gun legislation lobby -- doing the same thing.  Saying you don't care about Wayne is fine.But, I do not think that any of the people you mentioned "support the NRA" (although I think Spartan is a member).  I am not even sure where that thought comes from. I think -- and this should be abundantly clear from my posts -- that like it or not, the NRA is the leader of the "anti-gun control" movement.  Even NRA members disagree with Wayne, so I am not sure where you get that I think the people you mentioned support the NRA or that that even matters.  What matters (i.e., what is relevant to a gun control discussion) is that the leader of the NRA thinks of the US sort of like a Mad Max movie. That is relevant because if you believe that it makes sense you'd want a lot of guns and resist all effort to control guns . .  because its every man for himself .  . and we all need water

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I have been criticized for suggesting that fear leads some people to reject gun restrictions (e.g. "If I agree to that they will eventually come take my guns"). Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?Lol. I am guessing a convenient double standard applies.

      This comment is aimed at the people who have argued against your point and it lumps them in with Wayne's opinion while trying to take a jab at them AGAIN despite saying you want to move on.  I have said I do not care about Wayne and the NRA.  I know Bucfusious has said it.  I have never seen biggs or durango defend him/them either.  SO are you taking a jab at Spartan or DH (who might support the NRA), the two guys who you claim are willing to have a decent discussion or are you taking a jab at imaginary people that do support the NRA, but never have come to this board.

      Olaf, thanks for the comment. I was taking a jab at the double standard.  I thought that was pretty clear from my comment, but if not my apologies.  It does not lump them in with anything. In fact, the opposite is true. I was inviting those who have criticized me for mentioning fear to respond to Wayne -- the mouthpiece of the gun legislation lobby -- doing the same thing.  Saying you don't care about Wayne is fine.But, I do not think that any of the people you mentioned "support the NRA" (although I think Spartan is a member).  I am not even sure where that thought comes from. I think -- and this should be abundantly clear from my posts -- that like it or not, the NRA is the leader of the "anti-gun control" movement.  Even NRA members disagree with Wayne, so I am not sure where you get that I think the people you mentioned support the NRA or that that even matters.  What matters (i.e., what is relevant to a gun control discussion) is that the leader of the NRA thinks of the US sort of like a Mad Max movie. That is relevant because if you believe that it makes sense you'd want a lot of guns and resist all effort to control guns . .  because its every man for himself .  . and we all need water

      Ok vin, you're taking a jab at the "double standard" not the people you're accusing of having it.  Gotcha.Bottom line saying " we have to ban guns, do something or more children are going to die"  is blatant fear tactics.    In your case, posting a daily  gun shooting thread (many of which would not be remotely prevented wit the measures you have mentioned) and saying "see people die because there are too many guns" is blatant fear tactics.  As for Wayne, he represents an organization that represents gun ownership of course he is going to argue for that right especially with the knee jerk reactions of the left.  I'm not a member nor do I overly care what he thinks so I am not completely familiar with his comments overall

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      So there is another one.  I can't remember anyone defending him at any point in this discussion

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      exactly .  . and I agree completely.  I am not a fan of Bloomberg and Feinstein is an idiot, but their comments are equally relevant

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      So there is another one.  I can't remember anyone defending him at any point in this discussion

      correct, but I have never said anyone is defending him.  I said that people have criticized my comments about fear and so is there a double standard?  You have said you don't care about Wayne's comments about fear, I have no idea what you have said about my comments on fear, but, again, my point was to give people the invite, so thanks for taking it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      exactly .  . and I agree completely.  I am not a fan of Bloomberg and Feinstein is an idiot, but their comments are equally relevant

      While all parties are prone to making outrageous statements at times, I'm willing to bet that Wayne actually is more knowledgeable about guns than Feinstein and Bloomberg combined.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      So there is another one.  I can't remember anyone defending him at any point in this discussion

      correct, but I have never said anyone is defending him.  I said that people have criticized my comments about fear and so is there a double standard?  You have said you don't care about Wayne's comments about fear, I have no idea what you have said about my comments on fear, but, again, my point was to give people the invite, so thanks for taking it.

      The point is that none of us are pushing our views on "pro-gun rights" based on Wayne's views or statements.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      So there is another one.  I can't remember anyone defending him at any point in this discussion

      correct, but I have never said anyone is defending him.  I said that people have criticized my comments about fear and so is there a double standard?  You have said you don't care about Wayne's comments about fear, I have no idea what you have said about my comments on fear, but, again, my point was to give people the invite, so thanks for taking it.

      The point is that none of us are pushing our views on "pro-gun rights" based on Wayne's views or statements.

      Exactly, and he isn't here pushing his opinions on everyone with daily threads

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I have been criticized for suggesting that fear leads some people to reject gun restrictions (e.g. "If I agree to that they will eventually come take my guns"). Wonder if those same posters will criticize Wayne for selling guns based on fear?Lol. I am guessing a convenient double standard applies.

      This comment is aimed at the people who have argued against your point and it lumps them in with Wayne's opinion while trying to take a jab at them AGAIN despite saying you want to move on.  I have said I do not care about Wayne and the NRA.  I know Bucfusious has said it.  I have never seen biggs or durango defend him/them either.  SO are you taking a jab at Spartan or DH (who might support the NRA), the two guys who you claim are willing to have a decent discussion or are you taking a jab at imaginary people that do support the NRA, but never have come to this board.

      Olaf, thanks for the comment. I was taking a jab at the double standard.  I thought that was pretty clear from my comment, but if not my apologies.  It does not lump them in with anything. In fact, the opposite is true. I was inviting those who have criticized me for mentioning fear to respond to Wayne -- the mouthpiece of the gun legislation lobby -- doing the same thing.  Saying you don't care about Wayne is fine.But, I do not think that any of the people you mentioned "support the NRA" (although I think Spartan is a member).  I am not even sure where that thought comes from. I think -- and this should be abundantly clear from my posts -- that like it or not, the NRA is the leader of the "anti-gun control" movement.  Even NRA members disagree with Wayne, so I am not sure where you get that I think the people you mentioned support the NRA or that that even matters.  What matters (i.e., what is relevant to a gun control discussion) is that the leader of the NRA thinks of the US sort of like a Mad Max movie. That is relevant because if you believe that it makes sense you'd want a lot of guns and resist all effort to control guns . .  because its every man for himself .  . and we all need water

      Ok vin, you're taking a jab at the "double standard" not the people you're accusing of having it.  Gotcha.Bottom line saying " we have to ban guns, do something or more children are going to die"  is blatant fear tactics.    In your case, posting a daily  gun shooting thread (many of which would not be remotely prevented wit the measures you have mentioned) and saying "see people die because there are too many guns" is blatant fear tactics.  As for Wayne, he represents an organization that represents gun ownership of course he is going to argue for that right especially with the knee jerk reactions of the left.  I'm not a member nor do I overly care what he thinks so I am not completely familiar with his comments overall

      Right, so it appears -- and I am not criticizing just commenting -- that you care about my "fear tactics" but not Wayne's.  That's fine.  Thanks for the response.You characterized my position as "people die because there are too many guns" but that is not actually my position nor is it a fear tactic, although it is a reality in this country. I have said more guns= more gun violence. Just like common sense says I am more likely to get bit by a mosquito in a swamp then in my car, it is just common sense that the more guns are around the more gun violence there will be.  Think of it this way using a real world example from yesterday. Yesterday a Chicago teen was shot and killed in a spat over a boy.  The gun was given to the shooter by someone who stole it from the legal owner.  I am NOT for banning all guns, but simple logic says that if that gun was not around it is MORE LIKELY (not a certainty) that the teenage girl just gets a beat down or something similar. She could certainly get stabbed or killed in many other ways, but in today's society people settle disputes-- even trivial ones -- with guns, in part, because they just happen to be everywhere.  The reason guns happen to be everywhere is MONEY.  That's is a formula that makes no sense because it is PROFIT for LIVES.  There is no need to ban anything to change that formula because there is a lot of EASY ground to close between the nearly wide open gun society we have now and outright banning all guns (something that will not happen).  I am ONLY for closing the obvious loopholes that leads to 89 firearms per 100 citizen.  It is not a perfects solution, there is no such thing . .  but gun manufacturer profits are not that important to me so its worth making obvious, logical changes

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I am a member of the NRA. And I think at times, Wayne sounds ridiculous. Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Gifford.

      So there is another one.  I can't remember anyone defending him at any point in this discussion

      correct, but I have never said anyone is defending him.  I said that people have criticized my comments about fear and so is there a double standard?  You have said you don't care about Wayne's comments about fear, I have no idea what you have said about my comments on fear, but, again, my point was to give people the invite, so thanks for taking it.

      The point is that none of us are pushing our views on "pro-gun rights" based on Wayne's views or statements.

      I understand that, but in this narrow context I was only pointing out that there is apparently a double standard.  If I say fear prevents people from slowing the flow of guns, I am criticized as a fear monger.  Whether or not that is true, Wayne IS a fear monger, as illustrated, , so if we are being candid doesn't that mean, to play on George Orwell, "all fear mongering is created equal, but some is more equal than others?" In other words, because Wayne serves "your" interests Wayne's comments are ignored.That last part (in bold) is the reason I raised the issue.  Gun owners that disagree with Wayne but sit silently rise and fall with Wayne, whether you (gun owners) like it or not.  Your (gun owners) silence is tacit approval because, again, it serves your current interest. If things slide the other way -- i.e., Bloomberg et al get Congress to overreact  --  then gun owners will really have nothing they can say because they rode the Wayne train whether they agreed with him or not. Case and point, from the Baltimore Sun:"A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelming favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality. Or that the same poll shows NRA members do support many pro-Second Amendment positions (against a national gun registry, for example). Once again, the NRA's leadership is out of step -- not only with average Americans but even with people who identify themselves as NRA members. That kind of extremism may help the organization raise money from its base, but it's only making the country more vulnerable to criminals who can now purchase firearms at a gun show in most states without a Brady criminal background check.Leaving that loophole untouched is a preposterous position. And the poll commissioned by a coalition of mayors, including New York's Michael Bloomberg, shows most Americans understand that: 85 percent favor closing the loophole, including 69 percent of self-identified NRA members.What's the NRA's response? To attack the pollster, Mayor Bloomberg and just about anybody associated with the finding. On the subject of loopholes, the chief criticism appears to be that some people may be denied the opportunity to buy a gun, and that gun shows would face more paperwork.Might those polled have responded differently if NRA hot-button language had been used in the questions? Absolutely. But while the poll was paid for by an organization that would like to see the loophole closed, the questions are fairly worded. Respondents were simply asked if they supported a law requiring "all gun sellers at gun shows" to conduct criminal background checks on the people purchasing guns.No spin, no lengthy preamble talking about criminals and guns, just the basic premise of whether the Brady law should apply to all."The NRA (Wayne) is not in favor of closing the loopholes because it works against SELLING guns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So what is it you are proposing Vin? What is your “ideal” solution?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      So what is it you are proposing Vin? What is your "ideal" solution?

      I think my views are actually pretty close to what you have posted. I posted a list in our prior thread, but the highlights are I would be for true universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales, at a minimum. I would be for substantially restricting access to "assault rifles" broadly defined and high capacity magazines broadly defined BUT that is primarily because in my world the have so little value.  I would also be for removing all the nonsense that exists in gun legislation today, like hamstringing law enforcement's ability to analyze gun data.  That stuff is a billion miles away from gun registration, so the real issue is trying to silence potential bad news. Similar "nonsense" would be doing something like "banning" assault rifles but then selling the parts to assemble an assault rifle if you want -- if the point is to try and close the barn, so to speak, then don't close one door while opening another.although I think it is broader than a gun issue, I have always believed we don't place enough effort on mental health issue

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So what is it you are proposing Vin? What is your "ideal" solution?

      I would be for substantially restricting access to "assault rifles" broadly defined and high capacity magazines broadly defined BUT that is primarily because in my world the have so little value.  I would also be for removing all the nonsense that exists in gun legislation today, like hamstringing law enforcement's ability to analyze gun data.  That stuff is a billion miles away from gun registration, so the real issue is trying to silence potential bad news. Similar "nonsense" would be doing something like "banning" assault rifles but then selling the parts to assemble an assault rifle if you want -- if the point is to try and close the barn, so to speak, then don't close one door while opening another.although I think it is broader than a gun issue, I have always believed we don't place enough effort on mental health issue

      I would like for you to be more specific with this.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      So what is it you are proposing Vin? What is your "ideal" solution?

      I would be for substantially restricting access to "assault rifles" broadly defined and high capacity magazines broadly defined BUT that is primarily because in my world the have so little value.  I would also be for removing all the nonsense that exists in gun legislation today, like hamstringing law enforcement's ability to analyze gun data.  That stuff is a billion miles away from gun registration, so the real issue is trying to silence potential bad news. Similar "nonsense" would be doing something like "banning" assault rifles but then selling the parts to assemble an assault rifle if you want -- if the point is to try and close the barn, so to speak, then don't close one door while opening another.although I think it is broader than a gun issue, I have always believed we don't place enough effort on mental health issue

      I would like for you to be more specific with this.

      ok, I will when I have a bit more timeI think we generally agree on background checks and waiting periods, right?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So what is it you are proposing Vin? What is your "ideal" solution?

      I would be for substantially restricting access to "assault rifles" broadly defined and high capacity magazines broadly defined BUT that is primarily because in my world the have so little value.  I would also be for removing all the nonsense that exists in gun legislation today, like hamstringing law enforcement's ability to analyze gun data.  That stuff is a billion miles away from gun registration, so the real issue is trying to silence potential bad news. Similar "nonsense" would be doing something like "banning" assault rifles but then selling the parts to assemble an assault rifle if you want -- if the point is to try and close the barn, so to speak, then don't close one door while opening another.although I think it is broader than a gun issue, I have always believed we don't place enough effort on mental health issue

      I would like for you to be more specific with this.

      ok, I will when I have a bit more timeI think we generally agree on background checks and waiting periods, right?

      Yes. But, I think that's really the only thing that needs to change at this point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Still waiting Vin…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 395

      Why doesnt every person who owns guns move to a pro gun state and everyone who doesn’t want guns move to a state that prohibits guns?Same way with drugs/alchohol, gambling, ect...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Why doesnt every person who owns guns move to a pro gun state and everyone who doesn't want guns move to a state that prohibits guns?Same way with drugs/alchohol, gambling, ect...

      Now that makes sense!  ::)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Why doesnt every person who owns guns move to a pro gun state and everyone who doesn't want guns move to a state that prohibits guns?Same way with drugs/alchohol, gambling, ect...

      Did they start putting metal detectors at the state lines? Tons of gun laws in Chicago so people drive to Ft Wayne. The Santa Monica shooter couldn't get an assault rifle in CA so he bought the parts mail order and made it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Still waiting Vin...

      I know. I will post it. Takes some thought and just spent 14 hours in a car. Brain dead

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Why doesnt every person who owns guns move to a pro gun state and everyone who doesn't want guns move to a state that prohibits guns?Same way with drugs/alchohol, gambling, ect...

      Did they start putting metal detectors at the state lines? Tons of gun laws in Chicago so people drive to Ft Wayne. The Santa Monica shooter couldn't get an assault rifle in CA so he bought the parts mail order and made it.

      Pretty sure when you order AR parts, they will only deliver the "upper" and the "lower" to a licensed FFL dealer. And according to California law, it shouldn't be delivered there.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Still waiting Vin...

      I know. I will post it. Takes some thought and just spent 14 hours in a car. Brain dead

      It's okay. I played in a charity golf tournament today. Holy cow, it was a scorcher out there.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      moms dont like that kind of talkhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nj-nra-man-sandy-hook-parents-prop-gun-law-article-1.1777064

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Still waiting Vin...

      here's one, the NRA's efforts to stop data. Its akin to burning books:Since the 1990s, the powerful pro-gun NRA has targeted the heart of what most legislation is based on: studies about the effects of gun violence.Last year, the NRA used its influence in Florida to push through legislation that would punish doctors if they asked patients whether they owned a gun.And buried inside President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation is a little-known provision that prevents the government and health insurers from asking about gun ownership.The NRA says it is simply ensuring that taxpayer money isn't being used to promote a political agenda."If gun control groups ... (and) individuals want to further their research, we're not saying they shouldn't be able to do it," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN. "We're just saying they shouldn't be using public funds to do it."But public health experts say it's all part of an attempt by the NRA-led pro-gun lobby to hamstring lawmakers."If a bunch of people do research and generate solid evidence that suggests firearms policy should be reformed and either firearms or people who used them should be regulated in new ways, (if I'm a gun-rights advocate,) I'm not going to like that," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, head of the violence prevention research program at the University of California at Davis."So, I'll simply prevent the evidence from being collected in the first place. It's a brilliant strategy, and (the gun lobby) succeeded."A lightning bolt and a chilling effectIt wasn't a lot of money -- $2.6 million -- but it represented the bulk of the nation's research on firearms safety in the mid-1990s."With regards to gun research, it was enormous," said Stephen Teret, the founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.In the 1990s, this small portion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's budget went to a program headed by Dr. Mark Rosenberg that funded two high-profile studies that concluded the risks of having a loaded gun in the home outweigh the benefits."That was demonstrated if you counted dead bodies; it was demonstrated if you counted individuals shot but not killed; and tallied up the good guys versus the bad guys," said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, who led the research teams under Rosenberg's National Center for Injury Prevention program.Opinion: Let's take politics out of gun research The NRA, guns and health care Congressman claims disconnect in NRA Mixed messages in gun control debate NRA pres.: Up to schools to protect kidsKellermann said the studies were not politically motivated but simply a way to give homeowners information to make informed choices.But the studies created what Teret described as "the lightning rod that started the bolts of lightning from the pro-gun side."In 1996, it all ended.Flexing its political muscle on Capitol Hill, the NRA successfully pushed for legislation that effectively ended Rosenberg's program.To underscore its point, Congress -- in a move led by Jay Dickey, a former gun-rights advocate and Republican legislator from Arkansas -- added this language to the agency's appropriation: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."At the time, critics in Congress accused the researchers of pursuing an anti-gun agenda and said the CDC's work was redundant.The provision remains in place today.The language created what Teret called "a chilling effect" for nearly all gun-related work at the CDC. Though the agency continues to track gun deaths and injuries, it does little work on how to prevent them.Many years later, the National Institutes of Health funded a similar study that triggered the same lightning-bolt response.In 2009, the NIH study concluded that a person carrying a gun was nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who is unarmed.Two years later, Congress added the same restrictive language it had imposed on the CDC to all agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the NIH.Today, the NRA maintains its position that government research into gun violence is not necessary."What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," the NRA's Arulanandam said, "not to carry out more studies."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      "What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," the NRA's Arulanandam said, "not to carry out more studies."

      This...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms," the NRA's Arulanandam said, "not to carry out more studies."

      This...

      the obvious logical fallacy is to act as if those two things are mutually exclusive when they clearly are not. No one is saying DONT prosecute criminals and INSTEAD conduct studies lollook, there is an obvious reason to squelch the studies right? no intellectually honest positions starts with "first lets ignore the facts .  . ."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And in that quote, “and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don’t have access to firearms”. You leaving that out changes the whole meaning.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And in that quote, "and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms". You leaving that out changes the whole meaning.

      not sure how?  the quote still poses those two or three concepts as mutually exclusive to studies. Obviously no one is saying DONT try to do those things in favor of studies.honest question - why do you think the NRA guy is against the studies?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And in that quote, "and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms". You leaving that out changes the whole meaning.

      not sure how?  the quote still poses those two or three concepts as mutually exclusive to studies. Obviously no one is saying DONT try to do those things in favor of studies.honest question - why do you think the NRA guy is against the studies?

      Honestly Vin, I have no idea. And I don't really care. I'm sure the logical answer is that the results could be damaging to their reputation or could contradict what their message is. It could also be that they simply are protecting gun owners from revealing the fact to others that they own. Who knows?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And in that quote, "and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don't have access to firearms". You leaving that out changes the whole meaning.

      not sure how?  the quote still poses those two or three concepts as mutually exclusive to studies. Obviously no one is saying DONT try to do those things in favor of studies.honest question - why do you think the NRA guy is against the studies?

      Honestly Vin, I have no idea. And I don't really care. I'm sure the logical answer is that the results could be damaging to their reputation or could contradict what their message is. It could also be that they simply are protecting gun owners from revealing the fact to others that they own. Who knows?

      well, we collect data anonymously all the time . . . so my guess is you are right about the part in bold"Book burning can be emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime which is seeking to censor or silence an aspect of a nation's culture.  . . . . Examples include obliteration of the Library of Baghdad, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China's Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Aztec codices by Itzcoatl, and the Nazi book burnings."The NRA always suggest that carrying a gun is an exercise in freedom, apparently not all freedom is created equal

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      modern day book burning (i.e. silencing bad facts):In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”like I said, no logically valid and honest argument begins by saying we should destroy a certain set of facts

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      You’re reaching…no offense.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      You're reaching...no offense.

      Welcome to vin's world .......

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're reaching...no offense.

      none taken, but you're wrong . . . so says the author of the d-i-ck-e-y Amendment (i.e., the amendment that stripped the CDC of funding for gun research).  d-i-ck-e-y  was for 20 years the "point person" in Congress for the NRA.  This is d-i-ck-e-y :“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that d-i-ck-e-y ’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).Btw, why the change of heart?  well, one thing was he was out of Congress when he wrote the op-ed above . .  he was no longer in need of NRA money

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're reaching...no offense.

      Welcome to vin's world ....... 

      ahhh . .  back to posting about Vin . . . come on now  . . . what happened to that promise Olah berserker Jr.?btw, one the substance the actual author - a former NRA guy -- agrees with me .  ..lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      You're reaching...no offense.

      none taken, but you're wrong . . . so says the author of the d-i-ck-e-y Amendment (i.e., the amendment that stripped the CDC of funding for gun research).  d-i-ck-e-y  was for 20 years the "point person" in Congress for the NRA.  This is d-i-ck-e-y :“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that d-i-ck-e-y ’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).Btw, why the change of heart?  well, one thing was he was out of Congress when he wrote the op-ed above . .  he was no longer in need of NRA money

      Okay. Then YOUR point is? (I'm not being condescending)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're reaching...no offense.

      none taken, but you're wrong . . . so says the author of the d-i-ck-e-y Amendment (i.e., the amendment that stripped the CDC of funding for gun research).  d-i-ck-e-y  was for 20 years the "point person" in Congress for the NRA.  This is d-i-ck-e-y :“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that d-i-ck-e-y ’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).Btw, why the change of heart?  well, one thing was he was out of Congress when he wrote the op-ed above . .  he was no longer in need of NRA money

      Okay. Then YOUR point is? (I'm not being condescending)

      1. you asked me for specifics on NRA legislative bullspit that impacts legislation, this was my first example.  2. There is no reasonable defense to the NRA effort to stop CDC studies, a point the author of the law admits. 3.  That means the ONLY reason the NRA would want to silence the CDC is because the NRA feared the data.  Why fear the data? Why fear the data if it was just about a Constitutional right and NOT about making money by selling a lot of guns?  4. Well, the CDC study that prompted the NRA to get d-i-c-k-e-y to remove the CDC funding the next year was a study that concluded that the risk of gun violence from having a gun in a home outweighed the self defense value of having the gun . . .  5. the primary selling point and the most compelling argument for guns IS self-defense

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      You're reaching...no offense.

      none taken, but you're wrong . . . so says the author of the d-i-ck-e-y Amendment (i.e., the amendment that stripped the CDC of funding for gun research).  d-i-ck-e-y  was for 20 years the "point person" in Congress for the NRA.  This is d-i-ck-e-y :“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that d-i-ck-e-y ’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).Btw, why the change of heart?  well, one thing was he was out of Congress when he wrote the op-ed above . .  he was no longer in need of NRA money

      Okay. Then YOUR point is? (I'm not being condescending)

      1. you asked me for specifics on NRA legislative bullspit that impacts legislation, this was my first example.  I'll give you that.2. There is no reasonable defense to the NRA effort to stop CDC studies, a point the author of the law admits. The only reasonable (I use that term loosely) defense, I already mentioned3.  That means the ONLY reason the NRA would want to silence the CDC is because the NRA feared the data.  Why fear the data? Why fear the data if it was just about a Constitutional right and NOT about making money by selling a lot of guns?  This is where you reach4. Well, the CDC study that prompted the NRA to get d-i-c-k-e-y to remove the CDC funding the next year was a study that concluded that the risk of gun violence from having a gun in a home outweighed the self defense value of having the gun . . .  I'll go back and reread it, but I don't remember seeing that5. the primary selling point and the most compelling argument for guns IS self-defenseOf course it is

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're reaching...no offense.

      none taken, but you're wrong . . . so says the author of the d-i-ck-e-y Amendment (i.e., the amendment that stripped the CDC of funding for gun research).  d-i-ck-e-y  was for 20 years the "point person" in Congress for the NRA.  This is d-i-ck-e-y :“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress,” the op-ed continues, noting that d-i-ck-e-y ’s amendment “sent a chilling message” to gun researchers. “Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240?million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries,” they note, even though firearms kill almost as many Americans every year (about 31,000) as motor vehicle crashes (about 33,000).Btw, why the change of heart?  well, one thing was he was out of Congress when he wrote the op-ed above . .  he was no longer in need of NRA money

      Okay. Then YOUR point is? (I'm not being condescending)

      1. you asked me for specifics on NRA legislative bullspit that impacts legislation, this was my first example.  I'll give you that.2. There is no reasonable defense to the NRA effort to stop CDC studies, a point the author of the law admits. The only reasonable (I use that term loosely) defense, I already mentioned3.  That means the ONLY reason the NRA would want to silence the CDC is because the NRA feared the data.  Why fear the data? Why fear the data if it was just about a Constitutional right and NOT about making money by selling a lot of guns?  This is where you reach4. Well, the CDC study that prompted the NRA to get d-i-c-k-e-y to remove the CDC funding the next year was a study that concluded that the risk of gun violence from having a gun in a home outweighed the self defense value of having the gun . . .  I'll go back and reread it, but I don't remember seeing that5. the primary selling point and the most compelling argument for guns IS self-defenseOf course it is

      #2 and #3  - open invitation to you or anyone else to defend the reason we ban publicly-funded research on gun safety but not on cars or cancer or HIV when research on those issues save lots of lives.  Again, here is the PRO-GUN author of the law that bans publicly-funded research on guns:"Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, has been vocal about what essentially has amounted to a ban on federal funding for gun violence research, claiming that “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.” In July 2012, former Representative **CENSORED**ey co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Rosenberg, announcing that his views had reversed since he introduced the **CENSORED**ey amendment in 1996. Wrote **CENSORED**ey and Rosenberg, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.you suggested gun owner privacy (paraphrasing), I pointed out a lot of research data is collected voluntarily and anonymously. That quote from the PRO-GUN author of the law was 2011. Congress enacted the same basic ban in 2012, 2013 . . On #4:"In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." "The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”  Referred to as the **CENSORED**ey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay **CENSORED**ey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Never said I defended it. Don’t put words in my mouth.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Never said I defended it. Don't put words in my mouth.

      huh? where did I say that?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      You're reaching...no offense.

      Welcome to vin's world ....... 

      ahhh . .  back to posting about Vin . . . come on now  . . . what happened to that promise Olah berserker Jr.?btw, one the substance the actual author - a former NRA guy -- agrees with me .  ..lol

      I don't know what promise you reference, but I commented on your comments on the topic.  You don't like that then don't comment on the topic.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're reaching...no offense.

      Welcome to vin's world .......

      ahhh . .  back to posting about Vin . . . come on now  . . . what happened to that promise Olah berserker Jr.?btw, one the substance the actual author - a former NRA guy -- agrees with me .  ..lol

      I don't know what promise you reference, but I commented on your comments on the topic.  You don't like that then don't comment on the topic.

      lol, okay fair enough

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Fair would be you not talking in circles and not disregarding facts that don’t jive with your opinions, but like I said to DH ……….  lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Fair would be you not talking in circles and not disregarding facts that don't jive with your opinions, but like I said to DH ..........  lol

      well, dont resist that urge to keep posting about me . . . I am sure I will get blamed for starting this . .  lollook, if you want to keep posting about me feel free. like i said, it doesnt matter to me now that I know who you are. we're on equal footing now.  That said though, isnt it a little boring? I mean, how can I be more interesting than the Bucs or baseball or some other subject?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Sure you don’t care vinnie.  Boring?  Nope, it’s hilarious watching you get “pwned” on this topic over and over by poster after poster.  Spin baby spin.lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Sure you don't care vinnie.  Boring?  Nope, it's hilarious watching you get "pwned" on this topic over and over by poster after poster.  Spin baby spin.lol

      Fair enough. Got any thoughts on gun control? For example, did you realize that while you were posting about me - and not my views on the NRA blocking CDC research - I was posting that the actual pro-gun author of the law blocking the CDC ....AGREES WITH ME?

      Please wait…

Viewing 163 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.