ABC's "If I only had a gun." OMG what a crock!
04-11-2009 | 02:35 PM
#1
Thread Starter
mildly retarded
SuperBike
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,278
From: Denver, CO
ABC's "If I only had a gun." OMG what a crock!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1
Did anyone see this Liberal, one sided, sack of crap that was aired last night? OK, Its no use to have a gun to defend yourself, you will die regardless......I was infuriated!!
http://joeplummer.com/if_I_only_had_a_gun.html
here is a good response piece.
Did anyone see this Liberal, one sided, sack of crap that was aired last night? OK, Its no use to have a gun to defend yourself, you will die regardless......I was infuriated!!
http://joeplummer.com/if_I_only_had_a_gun.html
here is a good response piece.
04-11-2009 | 02:38 PM
#2
Thread Starter
mildly retarded
SuperBike
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,278
From: Denver, CO
....."But in the end, a lot of this boils down to common sense. Cowards rarely commit mass murder in a police station. They rarely do it at a gun show or a shooting range. In fact, these murderers seem to prefer “gun free zones” where they know their victims will be unarmed. And therein lies the common sense: When good people are disarmed, bad people can (and will) do whatever they want. Nothing in history proves otherwise…in fact, history stands as irrefutable proof of this fact."......
04-11-2009 | 02:54 PM
#3
Member
Squid
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 68
From: Chatt
....."But in the end, a lot of this boils down to common sense. Cowards rarely commit mass murder in a police station. They rarely do it at a gun show or a shooting range. In fact, these murderers seem to prefer “gun free zones” where they know their victims will be unarmed. And therein lies the common sense: When good people are disarmed, bad people can (and will) do whatever they want. Nothing in history proves otherwise…in fact, history stands as irrefutable proof of this fact."......
04-11-2009 | 03:02 PM
#4
i support twins
Superstock
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 395
From: Nashua, NH
dont you just love it? I cant stand these antigun people, because obviously gangs legally obtain there guns. those who have there guns legally use them for killing people for the reason.
when did common sense become so hard to obtain... i though it was common!
when did common sense become so hard to obtain... i though it was common!
04-11-2009 | 03:34 PM
#6
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 187
From: Massachusetts
04-11-2009 | 04:04 PM
#8
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,804
From: Atlanta, GA
Registration always leads to confiscation, and confiscation makes easy slaves out of all of us, which is really the only reason behind gun laws.
04-11-2009 | 04:33 PM
#10
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,547
From: Way Out West
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/....control.poll/
Public support for "gun control" is at an all time low. Ha Ha.
Public support for "gun control" is at an all time low. Ha Ha.
04-11-2009 | 05:28 PM
#14
Thread Starter
mildly retarded
SuperBike
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,278
From: Denver, CO
this is a quote form the comment section on the site:
"I am a 17 year veteran of law enforcement with many years as a tactical firearms instructor. I am also a veteran of the Iraq War with one deployment in western Iraq. Just maybe, I know a little more than Diane Sawyer about guns and close quarter battle with small arms. The 20/20 show was about the silliest and set up presentation that I've ever seen. How can a hand full of kids told to wear oversized shirts that hang half way to their knees and head and face protection restricting vision and hearing, then placed in an immediate and direct confrontation with a mock assailant who is also a highly trained close quarter tactical firearms instructor and who already knows what he will, or may encounter be an accurate portrayal of reality. It can't. In comparison, the Virginia Tech students were dispersed in a huge three story stone building and separated in numerous class rooms when the killer started systematically and slowly gunning them down. Even if one or more armed students had been killed or incapacitated, there could have been many other armed students, and in other class rooms who would have and time to draw their weapons and go into action. Certainly, the death toll would have been much, much lower. The same could be said of workplace shootings and shootings in shopping malls, restaurants, daycare centers and elsewhere where concealed permit holders who would normally be armed elsewhere are not allowed to carry their weapons. As it stood, those unarmed Virginia Tech students were sheep waiting to be slaughtered while they complied with the law which ABC still supports. Finally, most of us know why ABC aired this very biased show with the planned and staged results. ABC is against the idea of law abiding citizens being allowed to defend themselves, and ABC knows that there is a vote coming up in the Texas state legislature that would allow students who are 21 years of age and older, and who are properly trained, to carry firearms on campus. The bill will pass, and other state legislatures contemplating similar bills are watching. Good for them."
"I am a 17 year veteran of law enforcement with many years as a tactical firearms instructor. I am also a veteran of the Iraq War with one deployment in western Iraq. Just maybe, I know a little more than Diane Sawyer about guns and close quarter battle with small arms. The 20/20 show was about the silliest and set up presentation that I've ever seen. How can a hand full of kids told to wear oversized shirts that hang half way to their knees and head and face protection restricting vision and hearing, then placed in an immediate and direct confrontation with a mock assailant who is also a highly trained close quarter tactical firearms instructor and who already knows what he will, or may encounter be an accurate portrayal of reality. It can't. In comparison, the Virginia Tech students were dispersed in a huge three story stone building and separated in numerous class rooms when the killer started systematically and slowly gunning them down. Even if one or more armed students had been killed or incapacitated, there could have been many other armed students, and in other class rooms who would have and time to draw their weapons and go into action. Certainly, the death toll would have been much, much lower. The same could be said of workplace shootings and shootings in shopping malls, restaurants, daycare centers and elsewhere where concealed permit holders who would normally be armed elsewhere are not allowed to carry their weapons. As it stood, those unarmed Virginia Tech students were sheep waiting to be slaughtered while they complied with the law which ABC still supports. Finally, most of us know why ABC aired this very biased show with the planned and staged results. ABC is against the idea of law abiding citizens being allowed to defend themselves, and ABC knows that there is a vote coming up in the Texas state legislature that would allow students who are 21 years of age and older, and who are properly trained, to carry firearms on campus. The bill will pass, and other state legislatures contemplating similar bills are watching. Good for them."
04-11-2009 | 09:31 PM
#16
Moderate-whore
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,049
From: Leander TX!!
I liked this one...
To Daisy Snelling1000's post. 60 percent of all firearms sold today are semi-automatic. In case statistics present a problem, that means MOST modern firearms are semi-automatic. They fire once for every time you pull the trigger; so do basic revolvers. The only difference is that revolvers do not eject their spent casings and accept detachable magazines. Fully-automatic firearms have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since 1934, requiring that applicants attempting to posses fully-automatic firearms get approval from both federal and local authorities and pay a $200 tax for each weapon acquired. Furthermore, fully-automatics can only legally be purchased now if they were registered with the BATFE before 1986. An M16 that cost $600-$1000 back in 1986 now costs $16,000. Fully-automatics are effectively banned and are NOT used in crime due to little or no availability. This whole semantics argument is truly disturbing. It reminds me how little people actually know about firearms but yet are willing to support any lie the media propagates. For instance, a hunting rifle is by all definitions a "sniper rifle". How long would it take the media to get "sniper rifles" banned with such ignorance oozing from their viewing audience? Ignorance is sickening. It's especially sickening when it's intentionally propagated by a media outlet with supposed credibility.
To Daisy Snelling1000's post. 60 percent of all firearms sold today are semi-automatic. In case statistics present a problem, that means MOST modern firearms are semi-automatic. They fire once for every time you pull the trigger; so do basic revolvers. The only difference is that revolvers do not eject their spent casings and accept detachable magazines. Fully-automatic firearms have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since 1934, requiring that applicants attempting to posses fully-automatic firearms get approval from both federal and local authorities and pay a $200 tax for each weapon acquired. Furthermore, fully-automatics can only legally be purchased now if they were registered with the BATFE before 1986. An M16 that cost $600-$1000 back in 1986 now costs $16,000. Fully-automatics are effectively banned and are NOT used in crime due to little or no availability. This whole semantics argument is truly disturbing. It reminds me how little people actually know about firearms but yet are willing to support any lie the media propagates. For instance, a hunting rifle is by all definitions a "sniper rifle". How long would it take the media to get "sniper rifles" banned with such ignorance oozing from their viewing audience? Ignorance is sickening. It's especially sickening when it's intentionally propagated by a media outlet with supposed credibility.
04-11-2009 | 09:36 PM
#17
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,188
From: New Braunfels, Texas
I liked this one...
To Daisy Snelling1000's post. 60 percent of all firearms sold today are semi-automatic. In case statistics present a problem, that means MOST modern firearms are semi-automatic. They fire once for every time you pull the trigger; so do basic revolvers. The only difference is that revolvers do not eject their spent casings and accept detachable magazines. Fully-automatic firearms have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since 1934, requiring that applicants attempting to posses fully-automatic firearms get approval from both federal and local authorities and pay a $200 tax for each weapon acquired. Furthermore, fully-automatics can only legally be purchased now if they were registered with the BATFE before 1986. An M16 that cost $600-$1000 back in 1986 now costs $16,000. Fully-automatics are effectively banned and are NOT used in crime due to little or no availability. This whole semantics argument is truly disturbing. It reminds me how little people actually know about firearms but yet are willing to support any lie the media propagates. For instance, a hunting rifle is by all definitions a "sniper rifle". How long would it take the media to get "sniper rifles" banned with such ignorance oozing from their viewing audience? Ignorance is sickening. It's especially sickening when it's intentionally propagated by a media outlet with supposed credibility.
To Daisy Snelling1000's post. 60 percent of all firearms sold today are semi-automatic. In case statistics present a problem, that means MOST modern firearms are semi-automatic. They fire once for every time you pull the trigger; so do basic revolvers. The only difference is that revolvers do not eject their spent casings and accept detachable magazines. Fully-automatic firearms have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since 1934, requiring that applicants attempting to posses fully-automatic firearms get approval from both federal and local authorities and pay a $200 tax for each weapon acquired. Furthermore, fully-automatics can only legally be purchased now if they were registered with the BATFE before 1986. An M16 that cost $600-$1000 back in 1986 now costs $16,000. Fully-automatics are effectively banned and are NOT used in crime due to little or no availability. This whole semantics argument is truly disturbing. It reminds me how little people actually know about firearms but yet are willing to support any lie the media propagates. For instance, a hunting rifle is by all definitions a "sniper rifle". How long would it take the media to get "sniper rifles" banned with such ignorance oozing from their viewing audience? Ignorance is sickening. It's especially sickening when it's intentionally propagated by a media outlet with supposed credibility.
04-11-2009 | 09:42 PM
#18
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,547
From: Way Out West
It all reminds me of Claire Wolfe's semi-famous quote "America is at that awkward stage; It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
But it's been a while since she said that.
But it's been a while since she said that.
04-11-2009 | 09:43 PM
#19
Moderate-whore
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,049
From: Leander TX!!
04-11-2009 | 10:56 PM
#22
Super Byrd
Superstock
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
From: Cumming, Ga
04-12-2009 | 12:32 AM
#23
guru of things sparky
SuperSport
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 599
From: Grand Prairie , Texas
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants ...
Theres no mystery why they want to disarm everyone.
1) it would interfere with the comming New-world-Order police-state with one world government plan, because they might have to deal with an armed uprising against the Gov ... - [ the real reason for the 2nd ammendment ]
2) We might just overthrow the Government before they sell us down the river to the NWO people.
3) The US currently has the best armed civillian militia on earth. How could the NWO freaks come and bully well armed americans out of their rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution when they might get shot at?
4) The comming American Revolution II will require that we as citezen soldiers of the constitution would need as much firepower as possible to counter the unorganized and feeble federal response.
Yea, these are just a few of the reasons.
Theres no mystery why they want to disarm everyone.
1) it would interfere with the comming New-world-Order police-state with one world government plan, because they might have to deal with an armed uprising against the Gov ... - [ the real reason for the 2nd ammendment ]
2) We might just overthrow the Government before they sell us down the river to the NWO people.
3) The US currently has the best armed civillian militia on earth. How could the NWO freaks come and bully well armed americans out of their rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution when they might get shot at?
4) The comming American Revolution II will require that we as citezen soldiers of the constitution would need as much firepower as possible to counter the unorganized and feeble federal response.
Yea, these are just a few of the reasons.
04-12-2009 | 09:17 AM
#24
Moderate-whore
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,049
From: Leander TX!!
04-13-2009 | 03:58 PM
#25
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
The reason for gun laws is to hold their users accountable for their use and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Read the 2nd ammendment too, it says in plain english, "a well regulated militia". Do you want to be a part of a well regulated militia?
04-13-2009 | 04:31 PM
#26
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,547
From: Way Out West
If you really believed this you would be more worried about your car, motorcycle, home (all registered and always have been). Doesn't this mean that they're coming to confiscate your house?
The reason for gun laws is to hold their users accountable for their use and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Read the 2nd ammendment too, it says in plain english, "a well regulated militia". Do you want to be a part of a well regulated militia?
The reason for gun laws is to hold their users accountable for their use and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Read the 2nd ammendment too, it says in plain english, "a well regulated militia". Do you want to be a part of a well regulated militia?
The chief (but not only) aim of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that the states always retain the power, and the arms, to overthrow a tyrannical Federal Government.
Providing the Federal Government with the names and addresses of state militia members along with the make, model and serial numbers of their weapons wouldn't exactly further that aim.
In Haynes vs. U.S. 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (8-1)that convicted felons, who are prohibited from owning firearms, are exempt from gun registration laws because such laws are a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
Makes the argument about holding "users responsible" absurd on its face.
Last edited by RK1; 04-13-2009 at 04:36 PM.
04-13-2009 | 05:20 PM
#27
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
From: Ranson, WV
I happened to catch an article in the Dillon Precision catalog, The Blue Press, that discussed how the gun magazine writers were partially responsible for coining the term in the first place. How ironic is that?
04-13-2009 | 05:31 PM
#28
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,547
From: Way Out West
We lost that argument before it got started (20+ years ago). It was a sucker's argument in the first place. Let 'em have it. If there's no difference between a real "assault weapon" (select fire/machine gun) and a "semi automated" assault weapon, let's repeal the may '86 registry cut off and start working on the repeal of NFA '34. I've got some Shotgun News from the early '80s. A full auto M-16 or XM-177 for under 500 bucks. I can dream, can't I?
Last edited by RK1; 04-13-2009 at 05:33 PM.
04-13-2009 | 05:42 PM
#29
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
#1 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I think it's safe to say that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State so I ask again, do you want to be part of a well regulated (as in well functioning/in proper working order) militia? That's what we call Police and the reserves these days.
#2 the idea that citizens would overthrow a government with a trained, standing army has been absurd since not long after the army was formed, even more so in modern times. If the government decided to control the population militarily the population would have no choice but to comply. The technology gap between the most well armed citizens and the military would be the same as trying to hide behind a rose bush and defending yourself with a slingshot. Maybe the government doesn't want to take your guns and turn you into sheep after all? They could have done that at any time in the last 150 years.
#3 how is holding gun users responsible for how they use their guns absurd? 51 people died in rampage shootings IN THE MONTH OF MARCH in the USA this year.
I think it's safe to say that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State so I ask again, do you want to be part of a well regulated (as in well functioning/in proper working order) militia? That's what we call Police and the reserves these days.
#2 the idea that citizens would overthrow a government with a trained, standing army has been absurd since not long after the army was formed, even more so in modern times. If the government decided to control the population militarily the population would have no choice but to comply. The technology gap between the most well armed citizens and the military would be the same as trying to hide behind a rose bush and defending yourself with a slingshot. Maybe the government doesn't want to take your guns and turn you into sheep after all? They could have done that at any time in the last 150 years.
#3 how is holding gun users responsible for how they use their guns absurd? 51 people died in rampage shootings IN THE MONTH OF MARCH in the USA this year.
04-13-2009 | 05:44 PM
#30
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 276
From: Ranson, WV
We lost that argument before it got started (20+ years ago). It was a sucker's argument in the first place. Let 'em have it. If there's no difference between a real "assault weapon" (select fire/machine gun) and a "semi automated" assault weapon, let's repeal the may '86 registry cut off and start working on the repeal of NFA '34. I've got some Shotgun News from the early '80s. A full auto M-16 or XM-177 for under 500 bucks. I can dream, can't I?
Yes, you can dream. The fact that we are slowly attempting to dissect the mechanics of a firearm (DC still isn't allowing semi-auto pistols) allows me to dream of buying a full-auto Tommy.
