The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Ah, yes. The old appeasement argument. The hope that if you give them "what they want" then they will leave us alone. Be "reasonable" you say and then we won't be labelled as "extremists".

You really have no idea who our opponent is or what they want, do you? You still think gun control is essentially about guns.

Google is your friend. Even more so, books are your friend.

Read. It'll be good for you. Locke and Montesquieu are said to be good for the heart. If you're lazy, you can buy a couple of Mark Levin's latest books but you'll get a dollop of U.S. politics with it. Then you can think about why England's violent crime and gun crime rates rose after they banned almost everything.

If you stop trying to be "reasonable" and seek the truth without compromise, your blood pressure will go down.

Wrong from the get go....

I suggested giving them what I want thereby robbing them of the initiative.

They want a ban.

I want better screening, better training and periodic follow-up or re-qualification after licensing.

They want smaller magazines.

I want big magazines in the hands of people who have demonstrated that they are competant and trustworthy.

But please do carry on shouting no and stomping your feet and calling everyone who sees things differently than us idiots... that'll surely work just as well.

The majority who are right now sitting on a fence watching the show will come on side... they will be drawn by all that negativety like moths to a flame.... I'm sure of it.

You don't have to convince owners or anyone with half a brain that a ban won't work.
You need to convince non-owners who are sitting on the fence to trust us.

Articles such as the ones you usually post don't play well against the slicks who make their living spinning facts and selling the no-gun line.
We need to quit trying to pull the donkeys tail to make it stop and get out in front and start building a fence.

Get it?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

A juggernaut is facing us, make no mistake. It means business. It won't be upon us tomorrow but it is coming.

Okay, first thing that comes to mind. I'll go first...........West Baptist Church.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Get it?

Good post.

But you are missing something. What you are missing is me - and people like me.

Like it or not, we are citizens in this country too.

And I will not accept any form of gun control. You may think I am an extremist or wacko, but the fact is... I have a vote and I have a voice.

Stop asking me to concede.

I will not and never support anything that takes away an individual’s right to own a firearm. Background checks? Re-licensing? Great ideas. The problem is they do not work. They do not work for the same reason why I think everybody should own a firearm. We may be able to trust the government of today, but tomorrow, who knows?

Licensing and back ground checks are a way bureaucrats can take firearms away. It will not stop at the insane or those with a criminal history. Next it will be those who are divorced or those who have experienced bankruptcy. Sooner than later it will be those with sleeping problems or the guy who blew 0.06 after a night with his buddies.

I do not trust the government to manage anything. I will not trust my freedom to a stranger in Miramichi who has the power to make the decision if my application gets a stamp or the shredder.

Like it or not, I have a voice. I support unencumbered ownership of firearms for Canadians & Americans. While horrible, 28 people in a school is absolute peanuts compared to what a government can do. Ask the Ukrainians. Yes.... History does repeat itself.

[HunterDave]

Do you even know what country you live in Sneeze?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Wrong from the get go....

I suggested giving them what I want thereby robbing them of the initiative.

They want a ban.

I want better screening, better training and periodic follow-up or re-qualification after licensing.

They want smaller magazines.

I want big magazines in the hands of people who have demonstrated that they are competant and trustworthy.

But please do carry on shouting no and stomping your feet and calling everyone who sees things differently than us idiots... that'll surely work just as well.

The majority who are right now sitting on a fence watching the show will come on side... they will be drawn by all that negativety like moths to a flame.... I'm sure of it.

You don't have to convince owners or anyone with half a brain that a ban won't work.
You need to convince non-owners who are sitting on the fence to trust us.

Articles such as the ones you usually post don't play well against the slicks who make their living spinning facts and selling the no-gun line.
We need to quit trying to pull the donkeys tail to make it stop and get out in front and start building a fence.

Get it?

He won't get the logic you are presenting.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Good post.

But you are missing something. What you are missing is me - and people like me.

Like it or not, we are citizens in this country too.

And I will not accept any form of gun control. You may think I am an extremist or wacko, but the fact is... I have a vote and I have a voice.

Stop asking me to concede.

I will not and never support anything that takes away an individual’s right to own a firearm. Background checks? Re-licensing? Great ideas. The problem is they do not work. They do not work for the same reason why I think everybody should own a firearm. We may be able to trust the government of today, but tomorrow, who knows?

Licensing and back ground checks are a way bureaucrats can take firearms away. It will not stop at the insane or those with a criminal history. Next it will be those who are divorced or those who have experienced bankruptcy. Sooner than later it will be those with sleeping problems or the guy who blew 0.06 after a night with his buddies.

I do not trust the government to manage anything. I will not trust my freedom to a stranger in Miramichi who has the power to make the decision if my application gets a stamp or the shredder.

Like it or not, I have a voice. I support unencumbered ownership of firearms for Canadians & Americans. While horrible, 28 people in a school is absolute peanuts compared to what a government can do. Ask the Ukrainians. Yes.... History does repeat itself.

Wow. Frightening personal perspective. This post of yours is exactly what will freak out your average person as you stand out as well paranoid etc.

If I was a paranoid gun lover I would say that you are a UN anti gun plant hell bent on total gun removal and sadly you just can not see it.

Your Post is the opposite of Pesky

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

But please do carry on shouting no and stomping your feet and calling everyone who sees things differently than us idiots... that'll surely work just as well.

The majority who are right now sitting on a fence watching the show will come on side... they will be drawn by all that negativety like moths to a flame.... I'm sure of it.

If anyone feels they are an idiot, they should wear the hat and identify themselves. I have not called any position of the issue nor any group of people idiotic where that is not true. I reserve the right to tell the truth on such matters. That has not been true on the other side of the debate though, has it?

Meantime, you can carry on ignoring facts that don't suit you and refusing to find out who our opponents are and what they want and rely instead on hyperbole and sarcasm as a substitute.

The fence sitters you speak of will throw their lot in with you and trust you to out-smart those well-funded, internationally organized - and yet somehow maleable - antigunners.........I'm sure of it.

Get it?

Yes.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you feel you are an idiot, wear the hat and identify yourself. I have not called anyone an idiot. That has not been true on the other side of the debate though, has it?

Meantime, you can carry on ignoring facts that don't suit you and refusing to find out who our opponents are and what they want and rely instead on hyperbole and sarcasm as a substitute.

The fence sitters will throw their lot in with you and trust you to out-smart those well-funded, internationally organized - and yet somehow stupid - antigunners.........I'm sure of it.



Yes.

Can you articulate in your own words what main point that Pesky is trying to convey. He is simply asking you to look at the big picture and NOT shoot yourself in the foot...constantly.

It is the difference between looking at the issue like an adult versus the way kids behave when the want something.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Can you articulate in your own words what main point that Pesky is trying to convey. He is simply asking you to look at the big picture and NOT shoot yourself in the foot...constantly.

It is the difference between looking at the issue like an adult versus the way kids behave when the want something.

You jumped on my post before it was finished.

You're in no position to give anyone a lecture on adult behaviour. You're part of the group that spits up every time I post facts or studies. What do YOU call a mind that refuses to talk about facts and uses superficial ploys or personal diversions to drown out or distract the discussion whenever opposing facts mount up? Sounds childish to me.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by pesky672

They want smaller magazines.

I want big magazines in the hands of people who have demonstrated that they are competant and trustworthy.

You don't have to convince owners or anyone with half a brain that a ban won't work.
You need to convince non-owners who are sitting on the fence to trust us.

?

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

He won't get the logic you are presenting.

I thought you didn't like "big" magazines?

[tri777]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Wow. Frightening personal perspective..you stand out as..paranoid etc.

Want 'wow& frightening'....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e95_1...comment_page=7

Whom 'really' is the paranoid one..?

[Rocky7]

I'm not much on government spy theory myself. I have focussed on the gun control issue for years - who is behind it, what they want, how they operate, who their friends are, etc. They want a different world than I do and it only made sense to me to find out who they are.

There are some AO members who need to read this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122454474/IANSA-Model-Gun-Law

This is the IANSA model gun law. I found it some years ago. Then others found it, too. I cannot find it anymore on their site. It is also more difficult to find their rabid anti-male propaganda, too. I will not speculate on the reasons for that.

Fortunately, I downloaded it.

Before I hear the usual scoffs, I suggest you read the part on reloading. It starts on page 43.

One of the founding minds of IANSA was Wendy Cukier. Rebecca Peters is another. IANSA is now deep into the U.N. The charge on a global U.N. Small Arms Treaty resumes in May.

Still think this is funny?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You jumped on my post before it was finished.

You're in no position to give anyone a lecture on adult behaviour. You're part of the group that spits up every time I post facts or studies. What do YOU call a mind that refuses to talk about facts and uses superficial ploys or personal diversions to drown out or distract the discussion whenever opposing facts mount up? Sounds childish to me.

Don't be so touchy. I was not calling you childish. It is just that you don't at least acknowledge without slamming the other point of view. I see both side as well as a way for both to coexist. You fail to contemplate even a discussion...plug your ears and shout "nanananananananana". This is not constructive and rather totally destructive to your position in the debate.

Your studies are usually propaganda based and formed with a pre described outcome. If you can not see that both side can argue facts then there is purely based a bias on your part to think openly.

Sometimes facts are biased are only believed when wanted to be believed. That goes both ways.

You unfortunately can not see that coming across as an unmoving fanatic only pushes the average person away from your position.

[KWO]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Wow. Frightening personal perspective. This post of yours is exactly what will freak out your average person as you stand out as well paranoid etc.

If I was a paranoid gun lover I would say that you are a UN anti gun plant hell bent on total gun removal and sadly you just can not see it.

Your Post is the opposite of Pesky

Another assumption you are making - this time about the average person.

I consider myself to be an average person. I am reasonably conservative in my views, but not hard right. Married with kids and a dog. A couple of shotguns and a couple of rifles in the safe (no semi-autos). Basically living the middle class Canadian dream.

After having read through this entire thread, your approach freaks me out more than his. No need to go through the laundry list of reasons why. Based on this thread, it is clear that you would summarily reject them all.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ehntr

I thought you didn't like "big" magazines?

What I have been saying all along that there needs to be discussion, an understanding of both sides and a way of making it so that fewer guns are in the hands of bad guys.

This whole notion that it has to be either:

1. Unlimited guns with no restrictions for everyone, or

2. Total gun ban for everyone

We should be thinking of dialog and compromise if I was American directly involved in this debate.

When paranoia rears its ugly head...minds are clouded from reality and common sense.

Just a thought.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

When paranoia rears its ugly head...minds are clouded from reality and common sense.

Just a thought.

Making claims of paranoia does not support your argument. In fact, it is nothing more than mud. You operate the same way our opponents do in that regard.

Do some homework. I posted the IANSA Model Gun Law. Why are you still talking and not reading it?

And I would respectfully disagree - that was not a thought. Not what I would call a thought, anyway.

[Unregistered user]

Obama's proposals are in response to recent mass killings committed by crazed individuals in gun-free zones. Suppose there were no guns, crazy guy could quite easily buy or make a sword and do a lot of killing. Google "Berzerker".

[riden]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Great Rocky. I just agreed with better background checks and restrictions on larger ammo drums and mags. But you want the Swiss model where they highly control the ammo versus guns.

Also you realize te Swiss have no army and rely on reserves where last I checked the US had a small army.

All ammo needs to be used at the range. So pretty girls with guns and no ammo..is cute.

Gun purchases are highly regulated. Private sales often have criminal background checks...and need a permit.

Carry permits are only for security jobs.

Ammo sales are aso recorded.

Thanks for making our point again. Gad you are endorsing Swiss laws. You and I are pretty closely aligned now.

You'll have to post proof of that, cause I say it is wrong.

I have read CCW is widespread and 1/2 the provinces/states (I can't remember what they call them) allow CCW with no permit and the other half the permit is easy to obtain.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by riden

You'll have to post proof of that, cause I say it is wrong.

I have read CCW is widespread and 1/2 the provinces/states (I can't remember what they call them) allow CCW with no permit and the other half the permit is easy to obtain.

Do a Google search. I have not figured out how to copy and paste links on my iPad.

I found multiple references before. It wa posted somewhere on a past thread also. In Switzerland...if you have a security type job you can carry.

There are lots of examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Cool. Made it work.

http://csgv2.blogspot.ca/2011/03/tru...rland.html?m=1

http://swissgunblog.wordpress.com/20...swiss-gun-law/


And finally straight from the Swiss

http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/...ff/gunown.html

"In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years. ". Defined is Switzerland as a security guard or personal body guard.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.ht...-shootout.wplg

Looks like this clerk was lucky to have a gun. The guy that alerted the clerk was brave cause if the robbers suspected the clerk was armed likely were prepared to shoot him.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

What I have been saying all along that there needs to be discussion, an understanding of both sides and a way of making it so that fewer guns are in the hands of bad guys.

This whole notion that it has to be either:

1. Unlimited guns with no restrictions for everyone, or

2. Total gun ban for everyone

We should be thinking of dialog and compromise if I was American directly involved in this debate.

When paranoia rears its ugly head...minds are clouded from reality and common sense.

Just a thought.

Total ban is what the liberals strive for, one law at a time. You do not have to look at the United States for this behavior.

Just look at bill C-68 and the resulting massive firearm bans that occured in Canada. Not more than 24 hours after C-68 was passed there were more cries for more bans from the liberals.
There is no compromise with liberals. It is all or nothing with them and we conservatives have learned our lesson the hard way.

Since the medial is liberal they always blame the conservatives for not capitulating...when it is actually the other way around.

Also, I once was a liberal until I had to make a living in the real world.

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Total ban is what the liberals strive for, one law at a time. You do not have to look at the United States for this behavior.

Just look at bill C-68 and the resulting massive firearm bans that occured in Canada. Not more than 24 hours after C-68 was passed there were more cries for more bans from the liberals.
There is no compromise with liberals. It is all or nothing with them and we conservatives have learned our lesson the hard way.

Since the medial is liberal they always blame the conservatives for not capitulating...when it is actually the other way around.

Also, I once was a liberal until I had to make a living in the real world.

Thank you.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Also, I once was a liberal until I had to make a living in the real world.

You lost your heart and gained a brain

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

What I have been saying all along that there needs to be discussion, an understanding of both sides and a way of making it so that fewer guns are in the hands of bad guys.

This whole notion that it has to be either:

1. Unlimited guns with no restrictions for everyone, or

2. Total gun ban for everyone

We should be thinking of dialog and compromise if I was American directly involved in this debate.

When paranoia rears its ugly head...minds are clouded from reality and common sense.

Just a thought.

You suggest that the people with firearms must compromise. The people without firearms have no skin in the game, they compromise nothing, they exist to take something from someone else. Compromise usually comes about to find a mutual agreement on a new concept. Firearm ownership is not a new concept. Compromise is usually an agreement where neither party is happy. Anti's will only be happy when there are no firearms. The slippery slope again................like gravity......it is real.

What paranoia?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Total ban is what the liberals strive for, one law at a time. You do not have to look at the United States for this behavior.

Just look at bill C-68 and the resulting massive firearm bans that occured in Canada. Not more than 24 hours after C-68 was passed there were more cries for more bans from the liberals.
There is no compromise with liberals. It is all or nothing with them and we conservatives have learned our lesson the hard way.

Since the medial is liberal they always blame the conservatives for not capitulating...when it is actually the other way around.

Also, I once was a liberal until I had to make a living in the real world.

The whole using liberal as a bad word to denounce anyone that has an opinion contrary to yours s lame and immature.

50% of republicans polled are in favor of Obama's gun initiatives. So does this mean you are the lowly minority now?

http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-regulation-obama-poll-644/

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by greylynx

There is no compromise with liberals. It is all or nothing with them and we conservatives have learned our lesson the hard way.

Yes, conservatives have learned. Appeasement is the ticket to darkness.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The whole using liberal as a bad word to denounce anyone that has an opinion contrary to yours s lame and immature.

Responding with huffy superiority and no facts is what is lame and immature. You do a lot of that.

[Rocky7]

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:

Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.

In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."

Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.

In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.

..............."

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...ional-gun-laws

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by doetracks

Thank you.

x3

[vcmm]

"Before I hear the usual scoffs, I suggest you read the part on reloading. It starts on page 43."

WOW