Gabby Giffords [ gun control]

[rhomas]

First of all, I don't know of a single AR or AK style of gun that uses a "clip" of any type. All of mine, just like my BAR, use a magazine, and each of my bolt action rifles, also use magazines. Secondly, IF the Federal limits on 3 shot capacities for migratory birds was lifted and we were allowed to use our full 5 or 6 shot magazine semi-auto and pump shotguns for hunting them, would you still only limit yourself to 3 shots? You don't suppose that the 3 shot limits aren't a throwback to the original 3 shot magazine capacities of the original semi-auto shotgun, as well as a Federal mandate for limiting how many birds we can kill? ( BTW, I harvest crops, I kill animals for food).

 

[sethkuhl]

You do realize the reason you have a plug when hunting migratory birds is because it reduces harvest. Doesn't that same logic extend when some nut walks into a group of people?

Fight or flight only works if you get a chance to run or rush the nut.

Of course I realize that, but passing laws does not sway criminals, it limits law abiding citizens. You could make every gun illegal tomorrow, but who will still have guns?
There was a famous man in history who did lots of things the way our president is now, he was not so famous in our history books.

 

[Southwind]

Bullet singular. So you do realize no need for a clip of 30 for self defense. Thanks for supporting reasonable firearms restrictions. 5 is reasonable.

The highly trained professionals of the NY police department had a 17.4% hit ratio which means your 5 round capacity would have a 80% chance of one hitting it's mark.

Now, your not so trained wife only has five rounds and is being attacked so it is o.k. for her to only have five rounds to protect herself ?

 

[spook12]

I thought Dickey Normus was commenting on Obama and his histrionics, more than making any derogatory comment about Gabby Giffords. I suppose you also believe that Obama's use of school children in order to milk the tragedy of Newtown was also legitimate? Do you honestly believe that kids 5 and 6 years old wrote those letters he read? Can you state emphatically that those children even understand the concepts of gun bans and gun control? To deny that Obama, the anti-gun crowd and the main stream media have not used the victims of gun violence to parlay their agenda into a massive debate over the Second Amendment rights of legal gun ownership, is a denial of the obvious. To call those of us who question those tactics "gun nuts" is akin to going along with the wrong headed attitudes of the gun grabbers and their leaders. When we take into account the fact that a large majority of hunters in this country are avid gun owners and collectors, as well as choosing to pursue our love of hunting with a firearm; this is the most perfect venue for discussions about the current debate and all of the false information and media focus on unfortunate individuals such as Gabby Giffords. To extoll the propaganda of the antis while denigrating the truth of the pro gunners is to promote the denial of one of our most basic beliefs as hunters.

The true villains in this discussion are Obama and the anti-gun organizations who, with the backing of the media are escalating the debate through the outright sickening self promotion and use of unfortunate victims to pander to their sycophants.

I'm gonna paint with a pretty wide brush so cut me some slack on the specifics and try to see the big picture.

Can we agree that in the gun rights debate that's going on in this country has a lot of folks with different views.

1. Far left- These folks generally want to see all firearms removed from civilian hands.

2. Far right- These people generally believe that everyone should have any weapon that their heart desires.

3.left of center- It seems that the bulk of this group want those scary black guns gone,or some mag capacity restrictions. Most of this bunch don't seem to worried about traditional sporting arms,you know the ones like Grandpa had. For the most part they think that you should be able to defend your family in your home but they seem confused about whether you have that right out in public.

4.Right of center- This part of the public, which I suspect is the largest thinks that they have a Right to own and bear arms. They don't have any problem with what they see as reasonable restraints on these rights,most in this group don't feel restrained by the Government because they can't have a surface to air missile in the back yard.

Groups 1 and 2 are irrelevant to our discussion our history has proven them wrong.

Group 1 lets call them the Feinsteins will never disarm this country.
Group 2 well there's a list as thick as a Chinese phone book of all the Arms that a citizen can't own.

So that leaves the two groups in the middle.
In these two we have some folks who would like the Gov to tighten up the gun laws. They don't like the idea of confiscation, they want to be able to defend themselves BUT they just know somethings wrong with the way things are going.They don't want Uncle Bob to have to give up his duck gun but they are tired of seeing shootings on the news.

This group is our target, or at least it should be.
However It seems to me that those of us who profess to want to defend the 2nd have done everything in our power to alienate and offend these people.
We have scoffed at their every idea because they couldn't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine or semi and fully auto. They don't know what we know therefore they must be dismissed immediately.
Meantime the left has been more then happy to welcome these folks with open arms,Hell yes they have rounded up every sympathetic face that they could to spread the word of their cause. What have we done, trot out that mush mouth La Piare and our crazy uncle Ted. Really this is the best we can do to spread our message.
So those of us on the right of this issue get cheerleaders that will preach to the choir, meanwhile the left send forth sympathetic faces( Brady,Giffords,the Connecticut parents)to try to gain any ground they can. Their SOP has been to devoure the 2nd with a million little nibbles. We don't allow anyone into the tent that wont bite off the whole damn thing.

Before you just dismiss my thoughts look at national polls.
More homes with guns than without yet poll after poll shows that the majority support some sort of restrictions, from closing loopholes,to mag limitations. This tells me that there is a bunch of gun owners out there that are confused,scared and just grasping for anything that will fix a National disgrace.

If we continue to allow the Far right to speak for us we will some day see the 2nd die from those million little bites. Its time for the adults in the room to stand up and take charge,the time has come for the crazy uncles to go sit in the corner and wipe the drool from their chin.

Flame Away.

 

[noharleyyet]

Thoughtful post spook.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Of course I realize that, but passing laws does not sway criminals, it limits law abiding citizens. You could make every gun illegal tomorrow, but who will still have guns?
There was a famous man in history who did lots of things the way our president is now, he was not so famous in our history books.

That's why a ban needs to include a buy back program and then seizure with criminal penalties. Get them out of circulation so criminals don't have access to them.

I don't see 99.9% of criminals using automatic weapons, RPGs, Tanks, Nukes or other military grade weapons. Because they can't buy or steal them.

Start the wailing now!!

 

[RobG]

Well said spook.

 

[sweetnectar]

Dukes, you clearly don't need guns to kill a lot of people. A hell bent nut will try and get the job done with what ever device he can come up with.

I went to my daughters choir concert in a downtown school building tonight. What sucked was I had leave my weapon in the car and join the rest of the unarmed crowd. We were an easy target for some crazy methhead wandering the downtown streets. The unintended consequence of the "No Weapons Zone" is that the good guys follow the signs and get disarmed while the bad guys don't give a rip about the signs and start feasting upon their unarmed victims.
The intentions of the policy were pure when put into place, but the reality is different. Everyone wants a safe learning enviornment. The policy has created a less safe learning enviornment. CCW holder should be allowed to carry in schools.

 

[rhomas]

Dukes, buy backs? Really? Are the gun manufacturers going to buy back our guns at the current market values? I don't think so! Did any of us buy our guns from local cops, state governments, or the Feds??? Maybe, if you purchased some old military surplus M1's through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, but probably not! Why not just call these "buy backs" what they truly are. An opportunity for criminals to get rid of the evidence of their crimes by selling the weapons used to the cops, a source for the crooked cops to get their hands on rare and expensive collectable guns for the price of a gift card provided by some do-good company, providing income to people who have trash guns that aren't worth repairing, and taking advantage of honest people who have been brainwashed into giving up their guns due to a perverted sense of public duty! I won't even begin to get into the foibles of confiscation, but suffice to say do you honestly expect there would be any fair compensation for the value of seized personal property????????? BTW, do you honestly think for one second that banning legal ownership is in any way going to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns? Do you live in a fairy tale world? England has more guns in the hands of criminals, than any other segment of their population, but have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Look even closer, Mexico has a constant influx of weapons from Latin American countries, and those weapons are crossing our borders in the same manner that cocaine and illegal aliens are. Where do you think the gang bangers and the inner city thugs that shoot up the populations of Chicago, Detroit, LA, New Orleans, DC, and NYC, get their guns? Do you actually believe the majority of those weapons are straw purchases from other states, or stolen from legal gun owners? Facts are facts, and indisputable, no matter how the anti-gun crowd wants to spin them. Gun control does not solve crime, but disarming legal gun owners results in increased crime rates, including murder and rape. To deny those statistics (even though they are provided by the FBI, the Federales, BATFE, and Homeland Security) is like denying the holocaust! Guns save lives everyday in this country, and any attempt to ban or confiscate guns will only create a new class of "criminals", those who believe in the Second Amendment, and our personal liberties.

If people really want to live in a no gun society, then they should move to China, N. Korea, France, Cuba, or some other nation that doesn't have Constitutional protections. But leave those of us who love our Bill of Rights, and our guns, the fugg alone!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RobG]

Dukes, buy backs? Really? Are the gun manufacturers going to buy back our guns at the current market values? I don't think so! Did any of us buy our guns from local cops, state governments, or the Feds??? Maybe, if you purchased some old military surplus M1's through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, but probably not! Why not just call these "buy backs" what they truly are. An opportunity for criminals to get rid of the evidence of their crimes by selling the weapons used to the cops, a source for the crooked cops to get their hands on rare and expensive collectable guns for the price of a gift card provided by some do-good company, providing income to people who have trash guns that aren't worth repairing, and taking advantage of honest people who have been brainwashed into giving up their guns due to a perverted sense of public duty! I won't even begin to get into the foibles of confiscation, but suffice to say do you honestly expect there would be any fair compensation for the value of seized personal property????????? BTW, do you honestly think for one second that banning legal ownership is in any way going to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns? Do you live in a fairy tale world? England has more guns in the hands of criminals, than any other segment of their population, but have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Look even closer, Mexico has a constant influx of weapons from Latin American countries, and those weapons are crossing our borders in the same manner that cocaine and illegal aliens are. Where do you think the gang bangers and the inner city thugs that shoot up the populations of Chicago, Detroit, LA, New Orleans, DC, and NYC, get their guns? Do you actually believe the majority of those weapons are straw purchases from other states, or stolen from legal gun owners? Facts are facts, and indisputable, no matter how the anti-gun crowd wants to spin them. Gun control does not solve crime, but disarming legal gun owners results in increased crime rates, including murder and rape. To deny those statistics (even though they are provided by the FBI, the Federales, BATFE, and Homeland Security) is like denying the holocaust! Guns save lives everyday in this country, and any attempt to ban or confiscate guns will only create a new class of "criminals", those who believe in the Second Amendment, and our personal liberties.

If people really want to live in a no gun society, then they should move to China, N. Korea, France, Cuba, or some other nation that doesn't have Constitutional protections. But leave those of us who love our Bill of Rights, and our guns, the fugg alone!!!!!!!!!!

Where do you get this stuff? Buy backs are voluntary. Nothing has been proposed to "seize" anything, just stop the manufacture, sale etc. I don't necessarily support that btw.

 

[Dave N]

Where do you get this stuff? Buy backs are voluntary. Nothing has been proposed to "seize" anything, just stop the manufacture, sale etc. I don't necessarily support that btw.

That's why a ban needs to include a buy back program and then seizure with criminal penalties. Get them out of circulation so criminals don't have access to them. (posted by dukes daddy)

I agree, what makes you think a forced buyback for chump change on the dollar then SEIZURE is the answer. Forced meaning if you don't volunteer to turn them in then they will be seized. Just because you are OK with getting rid of certain types or styles doesn't mean the rest of us should be. Go ahead and turn in yours but leave me alone or find out how I defend my home and family. P.S., I don't stop at 5 rounds.

 

[CJ...$]

Bullet singular. So you do realize no need for a clip of 30 for self defense. Thanks for supporting reasonable firearms restrictions. 5 is reasonable.

Reasonable for Who? You can volunteer to never ,ever have more than 5 rds on you or in your gun... you can use a TC contender and keep the bullet in your pocket..thats what "we" as americans are "free" to do....I like shooting Machine guns from time to time...:hump:

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Is this D_D for real, LOL?!!!

 

[RobG]

That's why a ban needs to include a buy back program and then seizure with criminal penalties. Get them out of circulation so criminals don't have access to them. (posted by dukes daddy)

I agree, what makes you think a forced buyback for chump change on the dollar then SEIZURE is the answer. Forced meaning if you don't volunteer to turn them in then they will be seized. Just because you are OK with getting rid of certain types or styles doesn't mean the rest of us should be. Go ahead and turn in yours but leave me alone or find out how I defend my home and family. P.S., I don't stop at 5 rounds.

Not sure if the comments were directed at me, but I do NOT support seizing any guns that are currently legal. Nor are the laws in question proposing to do this despite the hysterical comments to the contrary. It would seem more productive if the conversation was about what was actually proposed rather than what some people on the extreme left want.

 

[Dave N]

That's why a ban needs to include a buy back program and then seizure with criminal penalties. Get them out of circulation so criminals don't have access to them.

I don't see 99.9% of criminals using automatic weapons, RPGs, Tanks, Nukes or other military grade weapons. Because they can't buy or steal them.

Start the wailing now!!

This is where the seizure thing first got started. I was quoting it to show where it was when you quoted rhomas and asked where he got that stuff. The rest of my reply was meant to agree with rhomas about buybacks and such. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding there. dukes daddy brought it all on once he proposed the buyback/seizure in his post.

 

[TLC]

That's why a ban needs to include a buy back program and then seizure with criminal penalties. Get them out of circulation so criminals don't have access to them.

I don't see 99.9% of criminals using automatic weapons, RPGs, Tanks, Nukes or other military grade weapons. Because they can't buy or steal them.

Start the wailing now!!

have you ever been to the south side of chicago? no automatic weapons? really? get a clue.

and just for gits and shins, how would you know if you had them out of circulation? because the criminals said they gave them all back?

 

[sethkuhl]

Perfect world thinking is how certain parties always sway. Then they look back and say huh, that should of worked. In the end criminals break laws, you cannot ever stop this, but you can defend yourself from becoming a statistic by being armed and situationally aware. I walk into a movie theater, I sit where I can get e and my wife out asap. I am in a restaurant I sit with my back to a wall. We no longer live in pleasant ville. You must protect your own. And if you wish to be a sheep and follow the Shepard, I recommend you look at who defends you and your loved ones. I am less than impressed!

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

Wow we have some differing thoughts on this post for sure. Hi I'm RUT JUNKEY and Im a 2nd amendment cult member. lol. my 2 cents: Obama is for sure using Gifford. Gifford isn't doing those speeches for free. Kelly is in it for the springboard effect for sure. Gun laws work? Ask someone from South Chicago or (Gary Indiana the Murder Capital for years). Buy back? Really? We all know that would never work. They can ban all they want, but, that won't stop the nutjobs they will just use a knife, rock, spear, piano cable, car, and the list goes on. Where will it end?

 

[huntme]

You don't find the following offensive. "Gabby Giffords as his anti-gun poster child". or "background checks (mental capacity)"

Classic gun nut hate speech against anyone who calls for any regulation of firearms.

What next. You going to trash talk the 20 moms who lost their kids in Connecticut? Why don't you just delete your hateful gun nut post and stick with hunting posts.

we do not need someone using the shooting in connecticut to further there anti gun aggenda,dukes_daddy.
gun ownership,and hunting go hand in hand,if a person wants or needs to hunt with a 50 cal,b.m.g it should be his right to own one,and if Gabby Gifford agrees to be the poster women for gun control,then she should allso know that her mental,capabilitys will be questioned,tested,and questioned again,by the so called gun extremist,and anti gun extremist,and rightly so.
we have enough gun laws on the books now,we do not need more.
you on the other hand should go get checked out because i think your mind is so caught up with controling guns that you missed the big picture.
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE,PEOPLE USE GUNS AS A TOOL TO KILL PEOPLE.
and in case you did not allready know,killing with a gun,knife,bat,car,tooth pick,is allready against the law,and so making a new law just adds more laws that the criminal allready ignores.
and please drop the act,dukes_daddy.
no one should act as stupid as you.:W:

 

[noharleyyet]

Apologize, he ain't acting.