Remember New Orleans - Wayne LaPierre

BIGIRON

BIGIRON

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,879
Location
South Texas
Thanks. Couldn't get that link to work but finally found lot's of stuff on Google.

The best story was "... he was just carrying it from the boat for some people he had rescued".

I'm willing to cut him some slack, cause he was there and he did help. Maybe because there were lots of cameras around or maybe just cause he thought it a good thing to do. Time will tell.

He'll have a hard time climbing back on the antigun bandwagon.
 
was_jlh

was_jlh

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
751
BIGIRON, the link went dead soon after I posted it, however I saved it first :

spgun.jpg
 
ikendu

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
I've never liked the legislative positions that the NRA promotes.

I grew up on a farm in Ohio, we had 3 shotguns and a bolt action rifle for hunting. In all of the times I stalked ground hogs, I never could get off more than one shot. I either got it or it zipped back down a hole; no chance for a second shot.

If some roving gang ever came to our farm to rob us of our food or water, I'm sure my father and three sons armed with shotguns would have deterred anyone that could be deterred.

I see in Wayne's article, this phrase:

"Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?"

This is the part that causes me to disrepect the legislative positions of the NRA. If a double barreled shotgun is not enough to deter someone from coming up my walk, I don't think a high capacity magazine is going to make any difference.

I've never needed an assault style rifle to hunt. I've never needed a high capacity magazine. I don't need special "cop killer" bullets to defend my home. Sorry guys, I won't be supporting the NRA even though I support the right to hunt and to defend your home with a firearm. As a society, we don't need individual access to rapid fire weapons with high capacity magazines. Those kind of weapons interfere with the police and their ability to defend us. Shotguns and bolt action rifles were all I needed, ever. If I ever wanted a rapid fire weapon "just for fun", there could be special licensing just like there is to own a "tommy gun".

For those of you that are NRA members, get your leadership to promote more sensible legislative positions, and I might consider supporting.
 
bigcozy

bigcozy

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
501
Location
Southern Fried
I was in a riot in Memphis that got very hairy, I had three women with me. The only way we got out was I put them in front of me and pointed my Glock 19 at the crowed following us. I had 15 rounds, it would not have been enough. Several were armed with automatic pistols as well, I wasn't overmatching them and a low capacity slow to cycle weapon would have been tipping the odds in their favor. They knew what I had so they just kept up the pressure until a passer by picked us up. I would have given $10 thousand for a assault rifle that night. I managed to deter, but still feel I was lucky, I could hear shots in the area and I was prepared to whatever I had to. I did not feel I would make it out. If you go through something like this, I assure you that you would have some perspective change.

The reality of your situation with groundhogs at the farm or the back up of family has nothing to do with my reality of nearly being a victim of gang violence. Because of the NRA I legally owned a Austrian hi cap pistol, certainly without the NRA it would be far different. I also had a CCW Permit, ever tried to CCW a shotgun or bolt action rifle? I use an AR15 for coyotes at my brothers place because it is accurate lightwieght and easy to change calibers.

If this is the position you are coming from, that your limited experience should convince the NRA to change positions, we don't need you. The first time you use the "cop killer" bullet canard, you will be laughed at any meeting. Can you explain cop killer bullets to me?
 
B

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
"Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?"

This is the part that causes me to disrepect the legislative positions of the NRA. If a double barreled shotgun is not enough to deter someone from coming up my walk, I don't think a high capacity magazine is going to make any difference.

I've never needed an assault style rifle to hunt. I've never needed a high capacity magazine. I don't need special "cop killer" bullets to defend my home. Sorry guys, I won't be supporting the NRA even though I support the right to hunt and to defend your home with a firearm. As a society, we don't need individual access to rapid fire weapons with high capacity magazines. Those kind of weapons interfere with the police and their ability to defend us. Shotguns and bolt action rifles were all I needed, ever. If I ever wanted a rapid fire weapon "just for fun", there could be special licensing just like there is to own a "tommy gun".



Uhhhhmmm Yep, OK.

Lets see by your line of thought the police are there to defend you, so you shouldn't need anything to defend your home with. The meat is available at most every grocery store, so you don't need to hunt. Don't need to make your clothes any more. Better that the legislation only let you have a pocket knife. Anything bigger might be to dangerous to own.

Who would the ALA Supreme ruler over licensing be? Who should be allowed to crawl, and bow down to them for an audiance, so that they may humbly ask for "special permit"? You, or just some other beaurocrat who can inflict his personal beliefs into the equation?

Remember now before you answer "Gun control isn't about guns, it is about control".
 
powernoodle

powernoodle

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
2,513
Location
secret underground bunker
ikendu said:
Those kind of weapons interfere with the police and their ability to defend us.

No, bad people interfere with the police. Guns don't cause good people to do bad things. I own AR-15s, AK-47s, normal (high) capacity magazines, etc., and for some reason have never felt compelled to rob a bank.

And the police weren't doing a whole lot of protecting down in NOLA anyway, which is sorta the whole point of being prepared to do it yourself.

Not trying to argue. Just speaking as a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. :)
 
BIGIRON

BIGIRON

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,879
Location
South Texas
Ikendu, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I won't comment except to say that if it weren't for people like me, who are the NRA, you wouldn't own any firearm --to hunt, target shoot, defend your family or just to collect.

I've pretty much learned to treat the anti's from the position of "if I have to explain it, you won't understand".

Just remember, when the Gun Police come for your grandads old double barrel ---- I told you so.
 
C

cslinger

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
752
Location
Nashville, TN
IKENDU,

I respect your right to believe what you wish but I disagree with you completely. It is the idiot behind the tool that causes the problems for LEOs and the average law abiding citizen not the tool itself. There are many folks who hunt coyote's with AR15 style "Assault weapons" because of their ease of handling accuracy and quick followup shots.

The constitution as well as what was in the federalist papers backs up that the founding fathers wanted every law abiding citizen to have access to whatever weapons were currently in use by the infantry/military of the time. This does not include rockets, tanks etc. as those were defined as ordanence, but it does inclued such things as automatic weapons.

At any rate my guess is this is one of those agree to disagree situations. Ain't America great. :D
 
LifeNRA

LifeNRA

Flashaholic*
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,453
Ikendu,

The 2nd ammendment has nothing, nada, 0, zip to do with HUNTING. It has everything to do with defending your life and the life of others.

Others have already responded well enough to the rest of your post so there is not much more I can add to what they have said.
 
Empath

Empath

Administrator,
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,506
Location
Oregon
bigcozy said:
If this is the position you are coming from, that your limited experience should convince the NRA to change positions, we don't need you. The first time you use the "cop killer" bullet canard, you will be laughed at any meeting. Can you explain cop killer bullets to me?

Generally, the postings are civil and meaningful. The above example is what can destroy threads, though. The general principal involved basically just says "attack the post, not the poster". If you can't permit adverse postings without turning to personal insults, then the topic can't be covered on CPF. We've made it this far on the topic; lets try to make it last.

Personal insults to other members won't be permitted.
 
A

AJ_Dual

Enlightened
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
691
Location
SE WI
The most basic definition of "government" is: "The entity within a given time or place that possesses a monopoly over the legitimate use of force." (In this instance "legitimate" is self-defined by said "government".) Look most anywhere else on earth, "those who have the guns, make the rules".

The United States of America, "Of the People, By the People, For the People", our beloved Constitutional Republic, DOES NOT EXIST, unless the average citizenry at least has the potential participate in "the legitimate use of force". If an outright ban on any arms of military utility comes to pass, this nation will still be called the "United States of America" on all the maps, but it will no longer be the "United States of America" that came into being on July 4th 1776.

The entire nature of our system of government is based on checks and balances, the wording of the Constitution itself, and all the Federalist papers bear this out well past the point of debate to any honest and open reading of them.

States rights Vs. Federal powers, strikes a balance between anarchy among states, and a overwhelming centralized national government.

Executive Vs. Judicial Vs. Legislative… I won't even bother, everyone here hopefully went to grade school.

The two Senators per state Vs. the proportional population of Representatives in Congress strikes a balance between all states being equal in the union, and giving proportional representation to the larger states..

The Electoral College for President Vs. Popular vote for Congress strikes a balance between "pure democracy" and "mob rule".

And the list goes on...

Everywhere you look, there are checks and balances against any one entity in the United States having too much power over another. The same is true between the citizenry at large and the government itself, and this was by design. That is why so-called "Assault Rifles" must be protected. The framers of the Constitution probably did have "crime" and "hunting" in mind when they added The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, although one might argue they felt those "needs" were so basic and obvious they didn't bear mentioning. Unfortunately, they likely had too much faith in their fellow man, and failed to imagine just how badly their words would be twisted in the future.

However, the one purpose for arms they did enumerate was telling, for both their foresight, and in their lack of faith in government, however well conceived. The Second Amendment was written as both a balance against the power of government, and as a last-ditch defense against overt tyranny. And without the threat of force to back them up, all other rights are ultimately meaningless words. The "militia" as then written, was simply, "anybody capable of fighting". There was no "National Guard", or "Reserves" at the time. And if these forces today are separate enough from Federal authority to satisfy the idea of "the militia" as written in the Bill of Rights to satisfy a "states rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, why are they serving halfway around the world in Iraq right as you read this? How come no Democratic governor who opposes the war, or the Bush Administration could refuse to send them?

Whether you like it or not, you are free, at least in part, because some of us have those "awful assault weapons" in our closets and in our gun safes. To paraphrase a famous quote: "Those who would trade liberty for safety, will soon find they have neither." All the hand-wringing over gangs, drug dealers, and the occasional school shooting, pales in comparison to the threat of genocide, however remote it may seem. "It can't happen here" is the ultimate in famous last words. Ask an African American, someone of Japanese descent who happened to live on the West Coast during WWII, or a Native American sometime. Or, imagine you had a time machine, and could go back to 1925, find a Jewish intellectual sipping coffee at a street-side café in the most bohemian part of Berlin, and you told him he and most of his family would be ashes before 1945 was over. He'd probably run the risk of dying from laughter before it ever even happened. All food for thought to anyone with an open mind, who truly values their freedom.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It's trite, but it's also true. After that, if your government turns outlaw? Sorry, you're screwed. The Founding Fathers cared enough to at least ensure we had a chance to prevent that from happening in the Second Amendment.

It's understandable that to think like this makes people nervous and uncomfortable, but like smoke detectors, seat belts, and life insurance, it's no less valid.
 
C

cslinger

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
752
Location
Nashville, TN
I agree that attacking a poster based on their POV is wrong and isn't going to win people over to our side. Us gunny's just tend to be passionate defensive lot sometimes.

Chris
 
T

TorchMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
805
Location
Texas
I think BigIron has it right. After numerous debates, in person and on boards, I've come to the realization that it's not going to change someone's mind. At least in an overwhelming major of cases. To be fair, I think that applies to both sides.

It's been a while since I dontated to the NRA. While they aren't perfect, as someone already stated, I do believe they've made a difference about, what is clearly to me, a constitutional right. I'm starting to rethink that now. My new line of thinking is "One less light to help support my right!"

Everyone has the right to their opinion. There is well meaning on both sides. What bothers me is that the anti's side will surely affect me if they have their way. While it can be said that my side, (assuming someone breaks the law though) might have some affect on them, and most likely be tragic, it's far less assured. And it could also be said that a tragic affect could result from my being disarmed, even partially.

It just seems like the teacher punishing the whole class for the actions of one individual. I don't want the choice stripped from me because of the actions of a few. Is it not still the .22 long rifle round that is the most common used in shootings? And, although I'm out of the loop, most hi-capacity that I know of are not that round.

I see what has happened in Australia. I watch what is going on in Brazil. And I worry that I will have neither liberty or safety soon. And though I've seen it's authenticity debated, there's a speech by a certain leader about a civilized nation having gun control, it's streets being safer and the world following it's lead. It took a lot of sorrow and suffering, but the thousand years reign he predicted lasted far less...

To get back to the article; I think it's one of the best reasoned, concise speeches I've seen. Bravo!

As to actors and the like, didn't Charlton Heston state that many of his anti-gun rights friends wanted to borrow some of his during a bad time in L.A.?
 
was_jlh

was_jlh

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
751
AJ Dual, fantastic post - :goodjob:
 
A

AJ_Dual

Enlightened
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
691
Location
SE WI
BTW, the gun ban referendum in Brazil went down in flames, something like 62% against a ban. :D

Although in a country where the police have a reputation for aleviating the homless problem by hunting children in the slums, perhaps it stands to reason.

I'm not sure we'd even do so well on such a referendum here in the states...
 
C

cslinger

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
752
Location
Nashville, TN
Yes and many are attributing that ban going down to groups like the NRA and that people seem to have a new appreciation for what it means to have a right to be armed. As far as I am concerned that makes my dues well spent. Whether they be hear or abroad the more allies the better.

Chris
 
L

Lemon328i

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
42
Yes and many are attributing that ban going down to groups like the NRA and that people seem to have a new appreciation for what it means to have a right to be armed. As far as I am concerned that makes my dues well spent. Whether they be hear or abroad the more allies the better.

Yup, but what isn't oft mentioned was that American gun ban groups like the Brady Campaign also were rendering help to the Brazilian anti-gun rights campaign. Good to see the falsehoods they spread in the US are found equally laughable in Brazil (and hopefully the rest of the world).

The NRA didn't send any money to the gun-rights groups in Brazil; they provided strategic advice, which clearly struck a chord.
 
L

Lightmeup

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
747
Location
Chicago
This is a very interesting article about how the reports of massive crimes and deaths in the wake of Katrina was apparently totally exaggerated. The mainstream media appears to be ignoring this, guess it wouldn't sell too many papers. If it's accurate, it would appear the scare tactics were used to justify the heavy-handed use of the military and Blackwater mercenaries by the Fed gov. It's hard to tell the players without a scorecard, isn' it?

Excerpt:
"After five days managing near-riots, medical horrors and unspeakable living conditions inside the Superdome, Louisiana National Guard Col. Thomas Beron prepared to hand over the dead to representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies.

"I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalls the doctor saying.

The real total was six, Beron said.

Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another jumped to his death in an apparent suicide, said Beron, who personally oversaw the turning over of bodies from a Dome freezer, where they lay atop melting bags of ice."

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#bs
 
BIGIRON

BIGIRON

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,879
Location
South Texas
Good article. Just reinforces what a lot of us have been saying about our out of control media.

I've learned to apply the "sandwich theory" to all media reports. Take off the top 30% and the bottom 30% and what's left in the middle may have some meat in it.
 
ikendu

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
A interesting aspect of this post is that there was great unity amongst the posters praising the LaPierre article until I posted my discussion that shotguns and a bolt action rifle had always met our needs for weapons ...and that "high capacity magazines" was a sample of why I wouldn't support the NRA.

That comment triggered all sorts of other posts about the "anti's".

So... I guess this is an example of "if you don't agree with us 100% then you are against us". This is the other reason I don't support such groups. The world is not black and white. Between the opposite poles of "No Guns" and "All guns and all ammunition", I think there are plenty of reasonable positions.

If the NRA is all about that we need enough and powerful enough weapons to fight federal troops to take our country back someday from a government grown too powerful, then I suppose taking positions at that farthest pole of "All guns and all ammunition" makes sense for the organization.
 

Similar threads

Tom_Dunn
Replies
30
Views
2K
Daniel Ramsey
D
picard
Replies
39
Views
3K
3
T
Replies
1
Views
601
John Frederick
J
tvodrd
Replies
3
Views
845
Sigman
Sigman
DarkLight
Replies
37
Views
5K
revolvergeek
R
Top