Celebrities, citizens flock to get on NRA blacklist

[Mr Manifesto]

Link at 11 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s977896.htm)

Gosh... I really hate to post a link with no comment, but... Really... This speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Actually, now that I think of it, no it doesn't.

Is this the most backfired campaign in PR history?

[Roadtoad]

Dammit, Mr. M, if you're going to post something like this, tell us how to get on the blacklist, too!

[Mr Manifesto]

Apparently it's as simple as going to http://www.nrablacklist.com

[Mr Manifesto]

I'd love to sign up. But being Australian, I'd feel guilty.

[Zep]

Me too, Mr M, me too.

[Nasarius]

As a US citizen, I had no guilt :)

Thank you for joining the NRA's blacklist and signing our petition. We have to work together to stop the NRA.

_
Stop the NRA from putting these killing machines back on our streets.


Stop the NRA from slamming the courthouse door on victims of gun violence.

_
The goal is to get 25,000 signatures that can be delivered to every Congressperson and Senator.
We need your help. It's CRUCIAL to this campaign that you ask friends and colleagues to sign on as well.


Please forward this e-mail to as many friends as you can and ask them to join the NRA's Blacklist.
http://www.nrablacklist.com

[Tony]

Its good to know who the enemies of freedom are. What other tyrants are on the NRA blacklist?

[BillyTK]

I'm still p!ssed I only made it to no. 2 in JAR's list of known communist subversives on the JREF board. So sign me up!

Originally posted by Tony
Its good to know who the enemies of freedom are. What other tyrants are on the NRA blacklist?

:roll: Oh stop this, you're killing me here.

[Tmy]

The NRA , NOW, ACLU, Right TO Life, etc.... they are all the same thing. They are the end ofthe line fighters for X rights. We need these organizations, they are a check n balance. I dont agree with all of what they do but I respect them for what they do.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Its good to know who the enemies of freedom are. What other tyrants are on the NRA blacklist?
Well, there's that tyrant Coreta Scott King, that tyrant Doug Flutie, that tyrant Michael Eisner, those tyrants Ben & Jerry, all those tyrants in the American Medical Association, those Police Foundation tyrants, that tyrant Jack Nicholson...

Oh, it goes on and on. If you tried to boycot every actor on that list, you'd never be able to see a movie again.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, there's that tyrant Coreta Scott King, that tyrant Doug Flutie, that tyrant Michael Eisner, those tyrants Ben & Jerry, all those tyrants in the American Medical Association, those Police Foundation tyrants, that tyrant Jack Nicholson...

Oh, it goes on and on. If you tried to boycot every actor on that list, you'd never be able to see a movie again.


I’m not trying to boycott anyone, I just hope those people have an early death, preferably by a person with a gun.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I’m not trying to boycott anyone, I just hope those people have an early death, preferably by a person with a gun.
There you go again, wishing for the death of people who disagree with you. Do you wonder why people here consider you to be an idiot?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

There you go again, wishing for the death of people who disagree with you. Do you wonder why people here consider you to be an idiot?

The idiots are the simpletons who cant grasp the concept that I dont dislike these people because they disagree with me. I dislike them because the actively want to take away some of my rights.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
The idiots are the simpletons who cant grasp the concept that I dont dislike these people because they disagree with me. I dislike them because the actively want to take away some of my rights.
And what you can't seem to see is that wishing death on those who disagree what your "rights" are is the mark of a very dangerous idiot. I hear you would like some cops dead too. This is why I said before that I am afraid to be in the same city with you. If I took your parking place, you might want to blow me away because I had taken away some of your "rights".

But don't just take my word for it. Ask some of the other posters here if they think you are an idiot. Make a poll if you like.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

And what you can't seem to see is that wishing death on those who disagree what your "rights" are is the mark of a very dangerous idiot.

I guess Thomas Jefferson was a dangerous idiot.

If I took your parking place, you might want to blow me away because I had taken away some of your "rights".

Now you're being stupid. Id expect the lack of critical thought like this from others, but not from you.

But don't just take my word for it. Ask some of the other posters here if they think you are an idiot. Make a poll if you like.


I dont care.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I guess Thomas Jefferson was a dangerous idiot.

Thomas Jefferson? Really. I guess I missed that part in history class where they showed he was a homocidal maniac. As I recall, he didn't even fight in the Revolutionary War.

Originally posted by Tony
Now you're being stupid. I'd expect the lack of critical thought like this from others, but not from you.
Thanks, I think. I'm just trying to shock you out of this bad habit you have of wedging your foot in your mouth up to your patella. I really don't think you truly believe half the stuff you say.

Originally posted by Tony
I dont care.
Logically, that is just a plain old lie. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't post here. You must hope someone is interested in your opinion. Even if you were just a troll trying to say outrageous stuff in order to get a rise out of folks, that would indicate that you cared about getting a rise out of them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thomas Jefferson? Really. I guess I missed that part in history class where they showed he was a homocidal maniac. As I recall, he didn't even fight in the Revolutionary War.


So a person fighting for his individual rights is a "homicidal maniac"? You've been adequately indoctrinated.

Thanks, I think. I'm just trying to shock you out of this bad habit you have of wedging your foot in your mouth up to your patella. I really don't think you truly believe half the stuff you say.

hmmm...

Logically, that is just a plain old lie. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't post here. You must hope someone is interested in your opinion. Even if you were just a troll trying to say outrageous stuff in order to get a rise out of folks, that would indicate that you cared about getting a rise out of them.

This doesnt follow, I post here because I want people to hear about my opinions. Therefore, I care if people here think Im an idiot or not? Sorry to dissapoint you, but I dont care what people think. Why? Because you cant get an accurate picture of a persons character from a few posts on a website.

[Hexxenhammer]

I say this as a lover of guns and a gun owner: The NRA are morons.

They don't represent me or my point of view.

Gun owners would be better off with a less militant advocacy group not so tied to the right, white supremacists, and fundmentalist christians.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Gun owners would be better off with a less militant advocacy group not so tied to the right, white supremacists, and fundmentalist christians.


I agree.

[Hexxenhammer]

While I like guns, I don't like semi-automatic tec-9 type murder machines, large capacity magazines ("but I need all 30 rounds to take down a deer"), gun law loopholes, and people who think that a log of gun serial #'s is somehow a violation of their rights.

I would love to be on the NRA's enemies list. Anyone on the list obviously thinks for themselves and doesn't just swallow NRA propaganda outright. I'm suprised Ducks Unlimited aren't on it.

[Kodiak]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people cannot separate someone's politics from the rest of the individual.

I am good friends with "several bleeding-heart commie-libs" and at least a dozen devout "bible-thumpers".

I think Rosie O'Donnell is hilarious.

I think Sting is a musical genius.

I love "banging my head" to System Of A Down and Rage Against The Machine.

Blacklisting and boycotting only lead to limiting one's perspective on the world around you. I rather get the entire view even if some of it disagrees with me or I find some of it offensive.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I think Sting is a musical genius.

<quiet word in ear>This is a skeptic's forum, you know?</quiet word in ear>

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK

<quiet word in ear>This is a skeptic's forum, you know?</quiet word in ear>

You don't like Sting? Even from his Police days?

[Ranb]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s977896.htm

"As a supporter of comprehensive anti-gun safety measures, I was deeply disappointed when I discovered my name was not on the list," Hoffman wrote in a letter to the NRA.

"I was particularly surprised by the omission given my opposition to the loophole that makes it legal for 18- to 20-year-olds to buy handguns at gun shows," he added.

Does anyone know what loophole he is talking about? When I was an FFL out in Hawaii from 1990-1994, the regs required ALL firearm dispositions to unlicensed persons to be performed in accordance with ATF rules which included filling out the yellow form (4473) and only transfering the firearms at the dealer's licensed address or at a sanctioned gun show. There were NO regs for an unlicensed individual regarding selling or buying firearm unless it was a DD or NFA (machinegun, SBS, SBR, OAW, or silencer) weapon. Since 1994, I have known about the assault weapon ban and the NICS checks, but these really have not affected who can sell to who.

Licensed dealers still have to follow all the rules at gun shows, this includes age limits and background checks. Selling a handgun to someone less than 21 years of age has been illegal for a while now. Of course I see some people with private collections that they are selling, or the few that walk around with a rifle slung over their shoulder with the for sale sign on it. None of this violation of the law or a loophole. It is little differant than placing an ad in the local newspaper or online.

Knowing all the ATF rules still apply at gunshows, what is the damn loophole they are talking about?

Ranb

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ranb
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s977896.htm

"As a supporter of comprehensive anti-gun safety measures, I was deeply disappointed when I discovered my name was not on the list," Hoffman wrote in a letter to the NRA.

"I was particularly surprised by the omission given my opposition to the loophole that makes it legal for 18- to 20-year-olds to buy handguns at gun shows," he added.

Does anyone know what loophole he is talking about? When I was an FFL out in Hawaii from 1990-1994, the regs required ALL firearm dispositions to unlicensed persons to be performed in accordance with ATF rules which included filling out the yellow form (4473) and only transfering the firearms at the dealer's licensed address or at a sanctioned gun show. There were NO regs for an unlicensed individual regarding selling or buying firearm unless it was a DD or NFA (machinegun, SBS, SBR, OAW, or silencer) weapon. Since 1994, I have known about the assault weapon ban and the NICS checks, but these really have not affected who can sell to who.

Licensed dealers still have to follow all the rules at gun shows, this includes age limits and background checks. Selling a handgun to someone less than 21 years of age has been illegal for a while now. Of course I see some people with private collections that they are selling, or the few that walk around with a rifle slung over their shoulder with the for sale sign on it. None of this violation of the law or a loophole. It is little differant than placing an ad in the local newspaper or online.

Knowing all the ATF rules still apply at gunshows, what is the damn loophole they are talking about?

Ranb

Can an 18 to 20 year old buy a gun from anywhere else besides a gun show? Why does Hoffman have a problem with 18 to 20 year olds buying guns at gun shows? This is his idea of a "loophole?" Maybe if they can't buy them anywhere else. Otherwise he is coming across like an idiot.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You don't like Sting? Even from his Police days?

(derail)Sting wasn't too bad in his Police days, but he sure sucked after that. I had Dream of the Blue Turtles (or whatever it was called) on record. It was scratched, and skipped for about half an hour before I realised there was a problem.

Mind you... That also happened to me with Frank Zappa, and I quite like him. (Shut up and play yer guitar...)
(/derail)

Luke T: Don't you have to be 21 to have a gun in the US? I don't know the gun laws in the US inside-out.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Luke T: Don't you have to be 21 to have a gun in the US? I don't know the gun laws in the US inside-out.

If you can walk you can own a gun. But there is of course an age limit on buying one. I don't know if it's 18 or 21 or if it differs by state.

[Roadtoad]

As someone who strongly supports the Second Amendment, not only for sporting use of firearms, but primarily for its intended purpose, my contention is that we'll only KEEP the Second Amendment is by the responsible use of firearms.

A record of serial numbers? Yes.

Taking a "fingerprint" of firearms? Yes.

Requiring training and security for firearms? Yes.

Seems to me, the NRA will be the end of the Second Amendment.

[Ranb]

I was looking at http://www.nrablacklist.com/ . It has the usual gun control freak crap on it such as;

"That means notorious dealers like Bull's Eye Shooter's Supply--which managed to "lose" 238 guns, armed the DC snipers and sold guns used by thugs in at least 52 other crimes--will go scot free."

I shop at this gun store. They have a good reputation in WA except with the media looking for a sensational story. The ATF has never said Bullseye "lost" 238 guns. They claim the owner can't account for 238 guns. Big differance here. If the dealer does not have the sales reciept, the form 4473, AND the bound book entry, the firearm is unaccounted for. It does not mean it was stolen or illegally given to a criminal. Bull's Eye had sloppy records, no excuse for that, but they are not the criminals that stopthenra.com makes them out to be.

I had a similar thing happen to me when I was a firearms dealer, but no one accused me of losing the gun, it was in my safe, and accounted for in the wrong bound book.

Because Bull's Eye sells thousands of guns, more of them will end up at crime scenes or stolen.

Ranb

[corplinx]

I confess, I created the NRA blacklist. I just wanted an easier list of names to give the soylent green truck drivers for pickup day.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
As someone who strongly supports the Second Amendment, not only for sporting use of firearms, but primarily for its intended purpose, my contention is that we'll only KEEP the Second Amendment is by the responsible use of firearms.

A record of serial numbers? Yes.

Taking a "fingerprint" of firearms? Yes.

Requiring training and security for firearms? Yes.

Seems to me, the NRA will be the end of the Second Amendment.

I agree except on the second point. Fingerprinting is pure rubbish.

Requiring training to make a purchase is in the spirit of the second amendment since the intent of the second amendment is to have a citizenry than can be called to arms at notice. We aren't shooining muskets nowadays and people really need be trained in the use of modern semi-autos if they are to be of any use to the state in a time of real crisis.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
While I like guns, I don't like semi-automatic tec-9 type murder machines

Your the one that fallen for propaganda. The gun that kills the most people each year is the 22 caliber, not any of the "dangerous murder weapons" that politicians have banned because they appear too often in gangsta rap videos.


When it comes to guns, just be pro-choice. :)

[Garrette]

Kodiak:

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people cannot separate someone's politics from the rest of the individual.

I am good friends with "several bleeding-heart commie-libs" and at least a dozen devout "bible-thumpers".

I think Rosie O'Donnell is hilarious.

I think Sting is a musical genius.

I love "banging my head" to System Of A Down and Rage Against The Machine.

Blacklisting and boycotting only lead to limiting one's perspective on the world around you. I rather get the entire view even if some of it disagrees with me or I find some of it offensive.



Man, Kodiak. If you're a chesty, fit, redheaded female, lookout; I'm coming to marry you.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You don't like Sting? Even from his Police days?
I was a big fan for the first couple of albums, but listening back now, his vocals sound like cats being tortured. I'll admit to still tapping a toe to "Dream of the blue turtles", but musical genius? I don't think so. Now Prince, even though he's done nothing of note since "Sign 'o' the times", and even though he's a bit mad (it seems to go witht he territory), I think he justifies the accolade.

[Graham]

This may seem like a silly question but I was wondering whether if you (Amercans, I mean) have a legally held weapon - can you just fire it whenever you like, assuming you're careful not to hit anyone?

Can you just have a little target practice session in your back yard?

Do people call the police when they hear gunshots or is occasional gunfire just normal?

Graham

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Apparently it's as simple as going to http://www.nrablacklist.com
Woohoo! My big idol; Ennio Morricone, composed the song used at that site. From a 1963 spaghetti western. So cool! :j2:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Garrette


Man, Kodiak. If you're a chesty, fit, redheaded female, lookout; I'm coming to marry you.

:D I think I'm reasonably safe then... :D

[LTC8K6]

Graham, where I live you cannot fire a gun in the city limits, but if you live out in the county, you can. These rules vary a lot, though. I used to be able to shoot at an improvised firing range behind my office, but that area has since been annexed by the city and so the fun has ended.

So, depending on where you live, you might just be able to fire away, assuming you can do so safely. Or you might get arrested.

I go to a friends property out in the county to fire at will now.

Hearing gunfire? In the city it probably gets reported every time. In the county, probably not as much, although someone called the sheriff on my friend when he was using a nail gun.

In the county during hunting seasons you will hear gunfire often. With some of the hunters I know, it's best to stay indoors.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Your the one that fallen for propaganda. The gun that kills the most people each year is the 22 caliber, not any of the "dangerous murder weapons" that politicians have banned because they appear too often in gangsta rap videos.

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting? :rolleyes:

After all, cars kill more people than guns, but they're not worth a damn for target shooting.

[Ranb]

Semi-auto guns are like most other firearms; meant for any purpose that the user intends.

Semi-auto pistols are slimmer than most revolvers, therefore they are popular with people who wish to carry concealed. They also hold between 7-20 rounds of ammo making them popular with the IPSC crowd and other competitive shooters. Semi-auto handguns such as the Browning buckmark, and the Desert Eagle among others are suitable for hunting. Rifles such as the ar15, M1a, and garand are also popular for rifle competitions. Nothing beats a good recoil or gas operated shotgun for shooting clays or or hitting popper targets.

Maybe you should stop asking questions you already know the answers to Tricky.

Ranb

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting? :rolleyes:

After all, cars kill more people than guns, but they're not worth a damn for target shooting.

A Lamborghini is not worth a damn for carrying groceries, and it certainly is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit by a great deal...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting? :rolleyes:


Does it matter what its meant for? My gun choice is none of your business.

A liberal is someone who believes that an abortion is their choice and none of your business but a gun sale isn't. The big difference is, someone doesn't die every time there is a gun sale.

Kidding, sorry for the strawman. A pistol instructor once told me this and I like it:

A gun is a tool, it makes holes, thats all.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting? :rolleyes:

After all, cars kill more people than guns, but they're not worth a damn for target shooting.

semi-automatic simply means that every time you pull the trigger, as long as their is a catridge in the chamber, the gun fires once. if there is a additional cartridge in the magazine, that cartridge is fed and it will be fired if the trigger is pulled again. exactly how is this not appropriate for hunting or anything else? having quick followup shots is the reason double barreled rifles were invented. are you also going to say that a double barreled is not appropriate for hunting? semi-automatic rifles are simply a refinement of that.

p.s. please don't tell me that you are simply a moron who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic but still thinks that having an opinion automatically makes it valid.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
While I like guns, I don't like semi-automatic tec-9 type murder machines, large capacity magazines ("but I need all 30 rounds to take down a deer"), gun law loopholes, and people who think that a log of gun serial #'s is somehow a violation of their rights.


While I like guns, too, I'm perplexed when people say they like guns but swallow the tripe that the media spews forth about guns, evidenced by calling the POS tec-9 a "murder machine" or believing that magazine capacity magically makes a gun more lethal, not to mention the so-called loopholes or how registration has been used in the past.

Talk about propaganda...

[EdipisReks]

there seems to be some confusion. let me clear it up. SEMI-AUTOMATICS ARE ONE ROUND FIRED FOR ONE TRIGGER PULL. THESE ARE NOT "ASSAULT" WEAPONS (THAT IS A HOLLYWOOD TERM ANYWAY, SO NOTHING IS ACTUALLY AN "ASSAULT" WEAPON, BUT I DOUBT THE PEOPLE CONFUSING SEMI AND FULL AUTO WOULD UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION ANYWAY). BEFORE YOU START WHINING AND CRAPPING YOURSELVES, LEARN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT. thank you.

[Roadtoad]

WE GOT THE POINT, EDIPIS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT CLEAR, AND FOR PROVIDING IT AT AN ACCEPTABLE VOLUME!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
Semi-automatic simply means that every time you pull the trigger, as long as their is a catridge in the chamber, the gun fires once. if there is a additional cartridge in the magazine, that cartridge is fed and it will be fired if the trigger is pulled again. exactly how is this not appropriate for hunting or anything else? having quick followup shots is the reason double barreled rifles were invented. are you also going to say that a double barreled is not appropriate for hunting? semi-automatic rifles are simply a refinement of that.
Most hunting is done for sport. You may in fact eat what you kill (as all hunters should), but for the vast majority of hunters in the US, it is not their main source of food. So if hunting is for sport, it makes little sense that sportsmanlike hunters would want to severely increase their odds to the point where the already disadvantaged prey would have no chance whatsoever. That is no longer "sport. You might as well just put them in a pen and slaughter them. That is why I say that semi-automatic weapons are not necessary for a hunt, unless you really aren't a sportsman, but rather just someone who likes killing things but is not talented enough to hit them. (And yes, I know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. I come from a family of hunters.)

Originally posted by EdipisReks
p.s. please don't tell me that you are simply a moron who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic but still thinks that having an opinion automatically makes it valid.
I don't believe most here would catagorize me as a moron. I tend to be a bit left of center on most issues, though not all. I am also an omnivore who is not in denial about having a fondness for meat. Also, I am not against owning guns or hunting, even though I choose to do do neither, but rather the proliferation of tools that make holes (thanks, corplinx) so efficiently that they become the optimal tools of criminals. If you can't hit what you are shooting at in two or three shots, then maybe hunting isn't the sport for you. Perhaps golf is your game.

And yes, I think my opinion is valid. It was not reached without considering various sides and it is not unchangeable. I hope the same can be said of you.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Luke T.


A Lamborghini is not worth a damn for carrying groceries, and it certainly is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit by a great deal...

If, however, you have a pregnant wife at home who wants pickles and ice cream, a Lamborghini is an acceptable choice for carrying groceries. :D

[EdipisReks]

Tricky, i wrote a point by point response here, but it was filled with vitriol so i removed it. you are ignorant of hunting, and your posts show it. i would suggest, in a friendly manner, that you read up on it. you might change your mind. hunting game is not a "bang, elk fall down" affair. unfortunately, most people don't realize that. and just so you know, i wasn't calling you moronic, as you do with Tony, i was calling your position moronic. there is a big difference.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
WE GOT THE POINT, EDIPIS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT CLEAR, AND FOR PROVIDING IT AT AN ACCEPTABLE VOLUME!

oh, i'm sure someone will pipe in with something stupid and make me repeat it all in a bigger font size. just you watch.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
Tricky, i wrote a point by point response here, but it was filled with vitriol so i removed it. you are ignorant of hunting, and your posts show it. i would suggest, in a friendly manner, that you read up on it. you might change your mind. hunting game is not a "bang, elk fall down" affair. unfortunately, most people don't realize that. and just so you know, i wasn't calling you moronic, as you do with Tony, i was calling your position moronic. there is a big difference.
Thank you for removing the vitriol. I admit I am not a hunter anymore, though I did some deer hunting as a boy. Yes, I know you don't often make the kill on the first shot. Or the second or third. Sometimes you miss them all. And I admit that by prohibiting semi-automatic weapons, you may not get the kill. You may even wound the animal and leave it to die a long, agonizing death, though I have a hard time viewing hunters as animal empaths. I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals. People were able to kill elk before the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons, and they should be able to do so now. Of course, this is just my opinion. As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.

And yes, I usually take the same tone that people take with me. Tony has a tendency to scream out things like "bedwetting leftists" at anyone who disagrees with him, so I don't cut him much slack. If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

Polite, but a loonie none the less...


:dl:






Check out my sig...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Check out my sig...
(sniff)Man, I am so honored!

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tricky

I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals.

As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.



I am not a great white hunter either, but I may be right when I say that a semi-auto rifle or handgun is rarely required or even helpful while hunting large game. Exceptions would be while hunting dangerous game. A quick second shot may be the difference between who walks away from the confrontation. But why should anyone care? I want what I want.

As an American why do you have such a big problem with the fact that gun owners enjoy enhancing their firearms collection with semi-auto firearms or even machineguns? Can you even name one time in the last 50 years when a civilian used a legally owned machinegun to commit murder?

I shudder to think of what other property would be deemed "legitimate" for the general public to own. There are more than enough restrictions on the way we live here in the USA. What else will you want banned or highly restricted because there is the rare opportunity for the criminal to abuse it? Fast cars? Recreational vehicles? Knives? Body armor?

I would say you are an anti gun nut. You would question my desire to own military firearms, and not even care that I am a non-violent person. I get crap from people who find out I make my own silencers, and like to shoot 50 caliber rifles. In my opinion they are bad Americans. They are certainly free to voice their own opinion, but they question my moral judgment just because I am a bit outside of what THEY consider to be the mainstream American gun culture.

I have had a few men tell me they were a bit worried that I owned a 50-bmg rifle. I asked them what they planned on doing to me that made them think I would try to harm them with my 50 cal. Guess what, when they were challenged in that fashion, they found their position to be indefensible and walked away.

Ranb

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by John Harrison


While I like guns, too, I'm perplexed when people say they like guns but swallow the tripe that the media spews forth about guns, evidenced by calling the POS tec-9 a "murder machine" or believing that magazine capacity magically makes a gun more lethal, not to mention the so-called loopholes or how registration has been used in the past.

Talk about propaganda...
Who says I'm swallowing what the media (you might as well put "liberal" before that because that's what you mean) says? Of course .22 Saturday night specials kill more people than any kind of gun. You can buy one for under $50! But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip. No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

I know the "slippery slope" routine. You take these away it will just mean that "they" (jack-booted FBI thugs according to the NRA) will come and take our hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers next. Not going to happen.

The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip.

You may not know it, but you're making our point for us. You, like most others who focus on the "assault rifle" term the media loves so dearly, are only addressing aesthetics, what a firearm looks like, not its power, range, rate of fire, or lethality.

I can fire my semi-auto Remington .22 "plinker" rifle or SKS as quickly as a semi-auto "murder machine". And, for the record, my groupings will be far superior to any fired from the type of guns you're so afraid of.


Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

Are you qualified to speak for all "serious hunters" and all those "interested in home or self defense"?? I personally have hunted "nuisance animals" like rabbits, raccons, and ground hogs for farmers using a 5.56mm "sporter" variant of the M-16 assault rifle.

A MAC-10, Uzi, or Tec-9 can be easily concealed underneath a light jacket. Damn near anything can be concealed under something like a trench coat.

Any weapon can be used in competition. All you need are two or more competitors with their weapons of choice, and a set of rules...


Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

When should I expect my bill for this psychoanalysis via internet?? :rolleyes:

[Furious]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thank you for removing the vitriol. I admit I am not a hunter anymore, though I did some deer hunting as a boy. Yes, I know you don't often make the kill on the first shot. Or the second or third. Sometimes you miss them all. And I admit that by prohibiting semi-automatic weapons, you may not get the kill. You may even wound the animal and leave it to die a long, agonizing death, though I have a hard time viewing hunters as animal empaths. I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals. People were able to kill elk before the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons, and they should be able to do so now. Of course, this is just my opinion. As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.

And yes, I usually take the same tone that people take with me. Tony has a tendency to scream out things like "bedwetting leftists" at anyone who disagrees with him, so I don't cut him much slack. If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

I am also not a hunter from a hunting family, but I'm going to disagree about whether semi-automatic weapons are appropriate for sport hunting. While I'm fairly unimpressed with the lack of accuracy of modern day hunters as a whole, a couple of extra shots are probably a good thing, especially since most of the guns used are semi-automatic shotguns firing slugs, which are pretty inaccurate.

In the rural farming area where I grew up, deer overpopulation is a huge problem. Many of the hunters I know have multiple permits as the state is making a conscious effort to cull the population. My high school physics teacher apparently clears an average of 30 deer a year in roadkill from in front of his house.

You're analogy of herding them into a pen and slaughtering them is practically a reality in my state. I agree one can hardly call it "sport", but there does need to be a serious check on the deer population when no other natural predators exist.

While I think semi-automatic 9mm weapons or better are a little over the top for hunting, saying any semi-automatic shouldn't be used doesn't really fit the bill either.

Having said that, I think the NRA is appalling. I don't want to live in a country that completely bans guns used for the purposes of sport shooting (even target competitions with howitzers would be fine by me if they are registered and done safely) and will most likely never happen, but to hear the NRA say it, background checks and trigger locks today mean the gestapo tommorrow.

The car/gun analogy is rather humorous as well. I know it is primarily for tax purposes, but a major reason cars are registered is for the purpose of tracking down the owner for hit and run accidents. Is it such a big deal to know who bought the gun?

As mentioned before, the NRA would have been a great organization for ensuring the personal liberty of owning a gun if not for the right wing conspiracy whackos who think they actually have a serious shot of defeating a modernized military unaided by a foreign country, and so scream at the thought of having to wait a whole day to get a gun.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Who says I'm swallowing what the media (you might as well put "liberal" before that because that's what you mean) says? Of course .22 Saturday night specials kill more people than any kind of gun. You can buy one for under $50! But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip. No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

I know the "slippery slope" routine. You take these away it will just mean that "they" (jack-booted FBI thugs according to the NRA) will come and take our hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers next. Not going to happen.

The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

did you ever think that maybe people just like to have such weapons, just like some people like to have very fast cars? and what do i have to do to get you to realize that semi-autos are not "assault weapons"? and saturday night specials have never been shown, in a study, to contribute to crime, as a cheap gun is still more expensive than a stolen gun. "saturday night" specials aren't even the .22's that are being specified as having killed more poeple than any other cartridge (that is incorrect, however, as the 9mm Prabellum actually takes that honor). and TEC-9's don't have "clips", btw. the last modern firearm to have a clip was the Kelgren designed Grendel pistol.

more bullets in the air doesn't guarantee kills. look at the vietnam statistics. for example, more than 1000 rounds were expended for every one viet cong kill. and if "semi automatic assault weapons" (as you keep erroneously stating) aren't appropriate weapons for home defence, why does Clint Smith, the director of the prestigious Thunder Ranch defence training program, advocate keeping an AR-15 in the home for defence? Massad Ayoob, one of our countries premiere experts in self defence and one of our finest police officers, also reccomends such weapons be kept for home defence. maybe you should try learning a little bit before you spew forth what it is that you spew.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Furious
but to hear the NRA say it, background checks and trigger locks today mean the gestapo tommorrow.

Respectfully, you're misinformed. The NRA is all for a national computerized instant background check. They are opposed to a waiting period, though. Also, do not infer that the NRA does not want firearms left unsecured. The NRA has no problem with trigger locks, only when someone proposes that they be mandatory. There are alternatives to trigger locks that do not impede the rightful owner from quickly accessing his weapon.

The NRA is not some super-sneaky cabal as Micheal Moore and others, including many in the media, would have you believe. The NRA is nothing more than concerned people joining together to protect a cherished right. If you are pro-gun, but anti-NRA, feel free to join and make changes from the inside. Every member is heard, and anyone can run for a leadership or advisory position within the NRA.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Check out my sig...

:D :D :D

[Furious]

Respectfully, you're misinformed. The NRA is all for a national computerized instant background check. They are opposed to a waiting period, though. Also, do not infer that the NRA does not want firearms left unsecured. The NRA has no problem with trigger locks, only when someone proposes that they be mandatory. There are alternatives to trigger locks that do not impede the rightful owner from quickly accessing his weapon.

I apologise for being misinformed of the background check, though will point out the waiting period (though I don't know this for sure, so help me out) is to provide enough time for administration. EDIT: Therefore, if the NRA agrees to background checks in principle, a reasonable amount of wait time should be allowed for it. Once again, I don't know whether or not a background check can be done "instantly" yet, but 24 hours doesn't seem excessive to me.

Mandatory trigger locks aren't enough of an issue for me to feel strongly either way. I semi-understand the gun at the bedside for home self defense, but trigger locks seem no more stupid than laws about buying beer on Sunday or mandatory seat belts. If you think you'll need a split second to raise a gun and shoot it, you can bypass the law by just slapping the lock on quick if you think somone who might actually proscecute will notice. The NRA seems a bit to rabid about making that a big deal for me.

I'm not motivated enough on gun issues either way to join an organization for it. When guns are sold at hot dog stands or hunting is outlawed, then I'll be motivated to effect change back to the center. :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Furious
Once again, I don't know whether or not a background check can be done "instantly" yet, but 24 hours doesn't seem excessive to me.

From the National Insta Check System page at the FBI:

The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response.

Fact sheet. (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top)

[Furious]

Originally posted by Wolverine


From the National Insta Check System page at the FBI:



Fact sheet. (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top)

Well feck it then, I'm a reasonable man. Screw the waiting period! :P

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Furious
Well feck it then, I'm a reasonable man. Screw the waiting period! :P

:D

Usually, I'd look at the word "instant" when government is involved and think "yeah, riiiiight." In this case, though, they're not kiddin'. Last time I purchased a firearm, the entire transaction took approximately 10 minutes, with most of that time being spent by either myself or the FFL completing the necessary paperwork.

Edited to add: it is my understanding that this is one of the main reasons the NRA opposes waiting periods. With the ability of current technology in place to perform the required background check upon purchasers so expeditiously, there's no need to prevent a qualified, law-abiding purchaser from completing a transaction in short order.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Furious

The car/gun analogy is rather humorous as well. I know it is primarily for tax purposes, but a major reason cars are registered is for the purpose of tracking down the owner for hit and run accidents. Is it such a big deal to know who bought the gun?


In theory, no. Unfortunately registration is never applied quite that way - an example would be to require all residents of a city to register their firearms, but after a few years decide to not accept any new applications. If you die, you cannot leave your guns to a family member. (Chicago) Other times the fees or requirements for licenses (hand in hand with registration) are continually changed to the point that most people can't get through the red tape to get "permission" after they have satisfied the background checks. (see NY, MA, CA, etc)

This is totally aside from the fact that the police can find out who legally purchased the gun from the manufacturer/dealer, without some new registration scheme. If they have the specific firearm, they give the serial number to the manufacturer, and trace it through dealer, buyer, etc.