[cuchulainn]

Sure you're not anti-gun Angela. Sure you're not. Hey, just because your essay is a string of factoids straight from the anti-gun movement's talking points, oh no, that says nothing about whether you're anti gun. And, gee whiz, just because you get your opinion about the gun lawsuit legislation from uber grabber Sarah Brady (and print her false claim of "total immunity," oh no, you aren't anti-gun. And golly, your dad collected guns? Why that seals it -- nope, you couldn't be anti-gun. :rolleyes:

from the Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~152~1747020,00.html Taking a stand on guns

By Angela Cortez, Denver Post Editorial Board

Gun owners tend to have hardened views on where Democrats stand on gun issues, according to a recent poll.

But the Second Amendment doesn't belong to any political party.

The poll, released by Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-rights organization that works to build bipartisan support for federal legislation to close the gun-show loophole, enhance background checks and aggressively enforce existing federal gun laws, found gun-owning voters often assume that Democrats, particularly if they are silent on the issue, are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment and disrespectful of the values held by those who own firearms. In addition, the study shows that a plurality of gun owners define themselves as moderates who would likely flock to Democratic candidates with a moderate position on guns.

I identify with the report. I have written about gun control, Many of my readers, and others, say they know I'm a Democrat, or a liberal, out to take their guns away. I guess there are some signs, but I don't think I've ever told anyone what my party affiliation truly is, and I've never threatened to take anyone's gun away (no one who didn't deserve it, anyway).

No one really knows where I stand on guns - gun rights or gun control, depending on how one perceives the debate - but they think they do.

In editorial board meetings, I probably come off "anti-gun," but it's my job to argue an additional point of view. I've written what seems like dozens of editorials - some award-winning - on closing the gun-show loophole as well as opposing other measures that would increase the proliferation of guns on the streets and in the wrong hands. But that doesn't mean I'm "anti-Second Amendment."

I do understand that constitutional right and will fight with all my might to protect it.

Many people who think they know me are taken aback when I tell them my father is a gun collector who taught me to shoot and how to handle and clean a gun in a safe manner. My dad even considered me a crack shoot.

Whether I own one now or not is similar to my party affiliation, it's not something I'm going to reveal here. But I do believe that the public has a right to know if I have a gun in my home, or on my person. Public records should answer that question.

The bottom line is: I'm not anti-Second Amendment and neither are most people - Democrat or otherwise. I don't dislike people who own guns. But I don't necessarily like guns.

We're law-abiding citizens, and my father has every right to own and collect guns. I don't want to take that right away from him, or anyone else who posseses the legal right to own a firearm.

That said, I don't want people to have guns in their homes if they have children or suffer from mental ailments. I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters. I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key. Like motor vehicles, I want them to be licensed.

I believe victims should have the right to sue negligent manufacturers or dealers of firearms. I wish people didn't feel they need guns in their homes for protection because I think that during a burglary or a struggle between a homeowner and an intruder, innocent people are likely to end up at the wrong end of the barrel.

I wish society could evolve at a faster rate into one that is non-violent and has little interest in or need for firearms. But I'm also a realist, and I don't make the rules. Anyone who has the right to own a gun can do so. My thinking on the matter really is neither extreme left or right, but somewhere near the center, like most people.

So don't tag me anti-Second Amendment. Tag me a Democrat if you will, but don't tag all Democrats "anti-Second Amendment," or "anti-gun."

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have introduced compromise legislation to close the gun-show loophole. heIt will be offered as an amendment to the gun-manufacturers immunity bill expected to come up for a vote this session. In addition, an amendment to renew the automatic weapons bill is expected to be attached.

This is where my sense of fairness and reality collide, because the immunity bill is rotten. "This bill (gives) gun manufacturers and dealers total immunity from civil lawsuits," says Sarah Brady. "This means the gun business will enjoy a legal freedom that no other industry has ever gained."

The problem is that the manufacturers immunity bill has the votes - TheRepublican votes are there, as well as and some key Democrats. Sadly, it is likely to pass, and President Bush has already said he'll sign it. The best we can hope for is that if it must pass, we get two good pieces of legislation out of it: Closure of the gun-show loophole - the gap that currently allows non-licensed dealers to sell their wares at gun shows without performing background checks - and the renewal of the automatic weapons ban.

While we've closed the gun-show loophole in Colorado (thanks to voters, not the legislators), we need a federal mandate to close the loophole throughout the country. This is important legislation and - apologies to to Ms.Mrs. Brady - must be passed.

Unless, of course, something better can be worked out. But I doubt it.

[cameroneod]

Letter written. I seriously doubt she'll respond though. Maybe she will, considering she's not an "anti." :rolleyes:

[cameroneod]

Not much of one, but still a response.




Cameron-
You've made some good points. Thanks for the feedback.
-Angela

-----Original Message-----
From: ***************************Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:34 AM
To: acortez@denverpost.com
Subject: Your article, "Taking a stand on guns."


Ms. Cortez,


Hello. I understand that you do not consider
yourself "anti-gun" but using false facts in your
article certainly makes you appear that way.

You quoted Sarah Brady as saying, "This bill
(gives) gun manufacturers and dealers total immunity
from civil lawsuits." That statement is blatently
false. Have you read the proposed legislation? It does
NOT give blanket immunity from prosecution. Far from
it, it merely makes gun manufactors immune from
frivilous lawsuits that would bankrupt them. They
still retain liability for the safety of their
product.

For instance, if you bought a handgun and that
gun malfunctioned causing an accident, you would be
free to sue the company to your hearts content even
with the new legislation in place. The only thing this
bill does is protect companies that produce a
perfectly legal product, from being litigated out of
business. Legal defence is expensive, and anti-gun
organizations know it. Its a documented fact that they
are using this angle to their benefit.

At the end of your article you state "...and the
renewal of the automatic weapons ban." This statement
is pretty misleading. To your readers, it would seem
that legislators are attempting to keep the evil
machine guns off the streets. This is not the case.
Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since
the early 30's, and there is no experation date on
that ban. The ban you are speaking of would more
appropriately be called the "Minor Cosmetic Ban."

The only thing the ban did was to stop the
manufactor (not posession) of weapons with SLIGHT
cosmetic differences from guns that hunters around the
country use every day. The ban had ZERO effect on
crime. One of the reasons it contained an experation
date in the first place was to determine if, at the
end of ten years, the law was effective in deterring
crime. It was not. Truth be told, these weapons were
NEVER a major source of crime in the first place. The
ban was merely a piece of "feel good" legislation.

I dont want to bore you with facts that you
probably wont read anyway, but I would hope that you
would realize that with power (the power to influence
the minds of the public, your readers) comes
responsibility. Please, at the very least, do some
fact checking before writing your next piece.

Thank you for your time,

Cameron *******

[Don Gwinn]

Good letter. She'll make a show of considering it. However, I think it's pretty clear that she's determined to have it both ways. She wants to support gun control and still not be "anti-Second Amendment." She can surely dismiss all your arguments out of hand and still be "open-minded and fair.":rolleyes:

[cuchulainn]

Good job Cam

[Obiwan]

She thanked me for my comments

[Standing Wolf]

That said, I don't want people to have guns in their homes if they have children or suffer from mental ailments. I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters. I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key. Like motor vehicles, I want them to be licensed.

So don't tag me anti-Second Amendment. Tag me a Democrat if you will, but don't tag all Democrats "anti-Second Amendment," or "anti-gun."

Just the typical, average, garden variety leftist extremist anti-Second Amendment bigot.

[P95Carry]

I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key. Go tell that to the criminals ...... and leave REAL and honest people the hell out of it.......... the people who have the RIGHT to defend themselves and their own.

She, and her ilk, really should get to wearing the right apparel, to suit their views. T-Shirts with ''I am unarmed and pro-rape'' ..... ''I am a gun-free zone'' ....... ya know, stuff to get the bad guys interest level up.:rolleyes:

[Moparmike]

We're law-abiding citizens, and my father has every right to own and collect guns. I don't want to take that right away from him, or anyone else who posseses the legal right to own a firearm.

That said, I don't want people to have guns in their homes if they have children or suffer from mental ailments. I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters. I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key. Like motor vehicles, I want them to be licensed.Does your dad hunt? If not, then you have just contradicted yourself (and several facts I might add, like CCW being licensed) and said that your dad should have no firearms. Sorry, but its what you said.

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten about the part where parenting comes responsibility-free. If no guns, how about banning other dangerous household things? Lets see: chemicals, knives, electrical appliances in the house (bathroom or anywhere, as you can carry a glass of water somewhere, and they often have dangerous attachments), water heaters (as you and baby can scald yourselves), stoves (dont touch, its hot and you will get burned), anything over 1lb above 1ft, anything glass, doors (I have smashed a couple fingers in my time, so its dangerous for everyone...), staircases, chairs and tables and counters (as you can get on top of it and fall off...), cars (are you familiar with physics? Large mass moving at speed and Newton's Laws?), etc etc etc. So eventually, you have 4 walls and a roof. Well, that roof could fall on top of you and family, so its out. Floors made of anything except egg-crate foam, as anything else is too hard....
I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters. I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key.Again, you say you are a liberal. Do you really want GWB to be the only one with guns, and the keys to YOUR guns? :scrutiny: :uhoh:

OOOOWWWWWWW, my head hurts. I have been thinking like some blissninny* liberal too long.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

* Liberals on this board: Some of you will take offense at this. Notice the adjective use of "blissninny" to describe said "Liberals." Ta Da, that means not you. Usually.:scrutiny:

[capt_happypants]

I had an interesting conversation with a current DPD officer with about 20 years of service. Right now, DPD is understrength by about 225 officers. There is a large number of veteran officers who were given a bonus to stay on the force for an extra five years, and their term of service is scheduled to expire in the near future.

He predicts that the force will be short 400+ officers.

Many of the gangbangers who were put away during the 1993 "Summer of Violence" are returning to the streets.

If Cortez gets her wish, Denver will be a giant free-fire zone for the 'bangers, and there isn't a damn thing DPD can do to stop it.

[jimpeel]

I want guns under lock and key.Why doesn't the locked front door of my home count as my firearm being "under lock and key"?

[Mad Man]

I'm just waiting for some politician to say "While I am not in favor of gun ownership, I would never interfere with a woman's right to choose whether or not to own one."

Having read Ms. Cortez's work over the years -- most of it being of similar poor quality -- and she is definitey "anti-gun." As she says, she's written about it a lot over the years, so how can she claim that "No one really knows where I stand on guns." What an insult to our intelligence.

What this piece boils down to is the old "I don't want to take away anybody's right to own a gun. I just want to make it so difficult, costly, and inconvenient that nobody will." (http://www.saf.org/JFPP13ch1.htm)

Imagine the reactions from the Left if somebody wrote the following about an issued that they believe is America's First Freedom:


Taking a stand on Abortion

By Demona Kortez, Bizzaro Post Editorial Board

Pro-abortion advocates tend to have hardened views on where Republicans stand on abortion issues, according to a recent poll.

But Roe v Wade doesn't belong to any political party.

The poll, released by Americans for Abortion Safety, an abortion-rights organization that works to build bipartisan support for federal legislation to end partial birth abortion, enhance parental notification laws, and aggressively enforce existing federal abortion laws, found pro-abortion voters often assume that Republicans, particularly if they are silent on the issue, are anti-abortion, anti-Roe v Wade and disrespectful of the values held by those who favor the right to an abortion. In addition, the study shows that a plurality of women (http://www.coaauw.org/boulder-oldsite/aauwb_center_for_gender_equality.html) define themselves as moderates who would likely flock to Republican candidates with a moderate position on abortion.

I identify with the report. I have written about abortion. Many of my readers, and others, say they know I'm a Republican, or a right-wing conservative, out to take their right to abortion away. I guess there are some signs, but I don't think I've ever told anyone what my party affiliation truly is, and I've never threatened to take anyone's right to an abortion away (no one who didn't deserve it, anyway).

No one really knows where I stand on abortion - abortion rights or abortion control, depending on how one perceives the debate - but they think they do.

In editorial board meetings, I probably come off "anti-abortion," but it's my job to argue an additional point of view. I've written what seems like dozens of editorials - some award-winning - on closing the loophole that allows minors to get an abortion without having to notify their parents, as well as opposing other measures that would increase the proliferation of abortion on the streets. But that doesn't mean I'm "anti-Roe v Wade."

I do understand that constitutional right and will fight with all my might to protect it.

Whether I have ever had an abortion is similar to my party affiliation, it's not something I'm going to reveal here. But I do believe that the public has a right to know if I have ever had or performed an abortion. Public records should answer that question.

The bottom line is: I'm not anti-Roe v Wade and neither are most people - Democrat or otherwise. I don't dislike people who have had abortions. But I don't necessarily like abortion.

That said, I don't want people to have abortions if they suffer from mental ailments without mandatory councilling and waiting periods. Like motor vehicles, I want abortions to be licensed.

I believe victims should have the right to sue negligent equipment manufacturers or abortion providers. I wish people didn't feel they need abortion.

I wish society could evolve at a faster rate into one that is non-violent and has little interest terminating potential persons. But I'm also a realist, and I don't make the rules. Anyone who has the right to an abortion can have one. My thinking on the matter really is neither extreme left or right, but somewhere near the center, like most people.

So don't tag me anti-Roe v Wade. Tag me a Republican if you will, but don't tag all Republicans "anti-Roe v Wade," or "anti-choice."

While we've closed the abortions-for-minors (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_restrictions.html) loophole in Colorado (thanks to voters, not the legislators), we need a federal mandate to close the loophole throughout the country. This is important legislation. It must be passed.

Unless, of course, something better can be worked out. But I doubt it.

[Standing Wolf]

Mad Man:

Well said!

[StuporDave]

Just emailed Ms. Cortez the following:


Ms. Cortez

I just finished reading your article "Taking a stand on guns" on the Denver Post website. Seems you are not sure whether or not you are "anti-gun" and "anti-2nd amendment".

Based on your views expressed in this article, you are definitely anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment. What right have you to decide why I may own a gun? You state in the article that non-hunters should not be allowed to own guns. I do not hunt, never have. I do compete regularly in rifle and pistol target competitions, as does my teenage son. Does this somehow make me evil or a criminal?

Speaking of my son, you also stated that I should not be allowed to own a gun because I have a child. How dare you assume that I would endanger a child by giving him or her access to a loaded firearm. My son has grown up around guns. He knows what they are, how they work, and what they can do. He has never had unsupervised access to firearms, even to the ones that are considered his. But he has also never needed to satisfy any curiosity about them by trying to get to them behind my back.

You say guns should be licensed, like motor vehicles. It is perfectly legal for me to own an unlicensed motor vehicle. I only need a license if I want to use a vehicle on a public street. Likewise I need a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. Your argument there is pointless, as you already have what you say you want.

People do have a right to sue negligent firearm manufacturers. If they build a defective product and someone is injured because of the defect, they are liable for damages. But, if some lowlife scum shoots me while trying to rob me, how in the world can that be the manufacturers fault?

You started your article saying you were not anti-gun, then proceeded to quote anti-gun rhetoric throughout the piece.

Just thought I'd let you know, since you seemed unsure.

You're definitely Anti-Gun


David K Faller

[makarov1]

About 6 years ago I moved away from the comfortable confines of coastal Virginia and landed in land locked North Georgia. No more beaches. No more surfing. I got homesick really quick, so homesick for the sound of an ocean beach that I felt pretty depressed. I considered more than once for treatment for depression. I knew that I wasn't even close to the point of doing any harm to myself, but I just couldn't seem to get out of the doldrums.

Did I suffer from "mental ailments?" Certainly I did, but within a few months I renewed my interest in firearms, the aroma of Hoppes replaced the smell of salt air, and I was on my way to recovery without help from the medical profession. My point is that ALL of us at some point in our lives suffer from one mental condition or another. Do you want to know a dirty little secret?

THE DEMOCRATS/GUN GRABBERS KNOW THIS! I beat depression on my own, but sometimes overcoming depression without seeing a doctor isn't adviseable. Many do seek help for mild/moderate cases of depression and recover FULLY. This so called "mental ailment" is perfectly normal behavior for humans, and the anti-gunners are seeking to stigmitize mild to moderate depression as an incurable disease and disarm the disease stricken person immediately! The antis WILL NOT make a distinction between mild depression and severe/chronic depression with frequent thoughts of suicide. This is just another smokescreen Schumer and his scum cronies are setting up right now with the NICS "enhancements."
Iv'e said this before on this forum, but it's worth repeating, these gun grabbing democrats (and RINOS) are the devil, and will resort to frequent "sneak attacks" such as the above to take away your constitutional rights.

[CaesarI]

I've never threatened to take anyone's gun away
I don't want people to have guns in their homes if they have children or suffer from mental ailments. I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters. I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons. I want guns under lock and key.

I have younger siblings in my home, I don't hunt, I want to walk around wth a concealed weapon (and maybe concealed weapons), and I don't keep my gun/guns under lock and key.

Hence: she wants to take my guns away, because she thinks I "deserve it".

Hence: she's anti-gun.

-Morgan

[George Hill]

Angela Cortez... There was a girl I knew back in High School named Angela Cortez. I dated her a lot in fact.
Hottie that was awesome to make out with... (why I took her out) but she was as stupid as a box of rocks. She tried to refil her gas tank through the radiator. (Why I stopped seeing her)
This sounds like the same person.

[Hazwaste]

"The poll, released by Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-rights organization that works to build bipartisan support for federal legislation to close the gun-show loophole, enhance background checks and aggressively enforce existing federal gun laws, found gun-owning voters often assume that Democrats, particularly if they are silent on the issue, are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment and disrespectful of the values held by those who own firearms."
===============================

60 Years Ago She Would Have Written:

"The poll, released by the Nazi Party of Germany, a Jews-rights organization that works to build bipartisan support for federal legislation to close the ghetto loophole and enhance aggressively enforcing existing laws concerning the final solution, found Jews often assume that Nazis, particularly if they're just obeying order, are anti-Jew and disrespectful of Jewish values."

[gunsmith]

But I doubt that A.Cortez will read the letters sent.
If some CCW holder saves her life she probably still would be against
CCW. She is either very stupid or very evil.

[Geech]

I love how people stake out a position and call it moderate, then they hide behind that like a shield. "Oh, I'm not anti, I'm a moderate. These are reasonable restrictions."

If you present only one side of the gun-control issue and quote only gun-control advocates, you aren't moderate.

If you tell people they can keep their guns or their kids, you aren't moderate.

Diane Feinstein has admited openly that she wants to ban every gun in America. Chuck Schumer believes the largest proponent of firearms safety in the world, the NRA, is evil. Why would the task of writing a "sensible" firearms law fall on the shoulders of two extremist anti-gun politicians?

[CaesarI]

The purpose of pieces like this is to associate anti-gun sentiments with being "moderate" and to paint all pro-gun people as "radical".

Few people have the moral conviction to be "radical" about anything.

The secondary purpose is to divide and conquer. The Left knows that if the NRA could mobilize even HALF of the gun owners in this country to vote pro-gun we'd swamp the elections. As long as the left keeps a split between the "radical gun rights supporters" and the "duck/pheasant/deer hunters" we lose.

We need to continue to emphasize the slippery slope argument, and continue to paint everyone who opposes the RKBA as a radical intent on banning every gun in existence. This was why Handgun Control inc. changed their name. This is why most anti-gun crusaders are NOT as honest about their intentions as Schumer and Feinstein.

Our greatest opponent is apathy. Some college kids will go to protests just cause they like going to protests! They might not even KNOW the cause. The opponentsof the Socialists tend to have real lives, and tend not to march on courthouses. This is why they win, and we lose over and over and over.

-Morgan

[Don Galt]

Radical is not something to be ashamed of-- its a description of the people who founded this country, and the ideas they put forth...

And they called on us to exercise "eternal vigilence" to defend them...

I think they knew the odds were against us.

[semf]

This will be my first e-mail response of this type or to this type. Any constuctive critiques would be appreciated. So submitted for your approval----


Ms Cruz,
I wholeheartedly agree with your idea of licensing firearms as we do automobiles. Of course I am assuming that since I can own as many autos and drive as much as I want that I would be able to do this under the licensing scheme you propose. As long as I never leave my property or drive any auto on public roads I need no license or registration. Would that go for my guns too? One can also own and operate an auto with no adult supervision at 16 and there are programs in school to teach our children to handle automobiles proficiently. Also my license and registration fees go to pay public roads and improvements. Would the gun licenses pay for purchasing public ranges and there upkeep? Once I have a driver’s license and a properly registered vehicle I can drive anywhere in the U.S. Same thing with the guns right?
Besides the fact that driving cars in America is universally accepted as a privilege, and the right to have guns is a constitutionally protected right, you can look that up if you don’t believe me, and the fact that cars and guns are as similar as a ballpoint pen and a jackhammer you’ve got a good plan there.
I don’t need supposition or assumptions to tell whether you are anti second amendment. Your stand on who you feel should be allowed to own firearms and under what conditions this privilege should be meted out. Along with the sources you use to come to your position on firearm ownership, tells me all I need to know about you.

[cuchulainn]

semf, just a quibble:

We don't licence cars; we licence drivers. ;)

[Nightfall]

...I've never threatened to take anyone's gun away (no one who didn't deserve it, anyway)
You do it for the entire damn article! At least most writers wait to contradict themselves further along in time. Cortez here can't even wait but a few paragraphs. Or maybe all of us are the ones who 'deserve it'.
No one really knows where I stand on guns - gun rights or gun control, depending on how one perceives the debate - but they think they do.
There are apes, swinging in trees, that could figure out your position on guns. Seriously.
I do understand that constitutional right and will fight with all my might to protect it.
I'm sure you'll be the first one with a rifle should the SHTF. And by rifle, I mean a #2 pencil taking notes for your newest editorial on how the gun owner/terrorists must be stopped. Ya know, for the children.
But I do believe that the public has a right to know if I have a gun in my home, or on my person. Public records should answer that question.
Yeah, it's only fair the criminals have a list of people to steal guns from, that liberals like you can harass and parade outside the home of law-abiding gun owners, and gov't maintains a constant list for the convenience of future would-be American tyrants.
We're law-abiding citizens...
So are we! Stop treating us like we're some low grade thugs out to shoot everybody!
That said, I don't want people to have guns in their homes if they have children...
Because it makes so much gawd damn sense that those with the most to protect, should be completely defenseless! Not to mention it furthers your agenda of indoctrinating future generations to be gun-ignorant. Can't teach your child to shoot if gov't makes the two mutually exclusive.
I don't want people owning guns if they're not hunters.
Because hunting is the only use for firearms. Everybody else, ranging from the woman fending off the rapist, to the Olympic target shooter are dirty, stinking criminals.
I don't like the idea of people walking around with concealed weapons.
I don't care. Deal with your own mental problems, don't make them mine.
I want guns under lock and key.
Because us stupid gun owners can't be trusted with something as complicated as securing an inanimate object.
I wish people didn't feel they need guns in their homes for protection because I think that during a burglary or a struggle between a homeowner and an intruder, innocent people are likely to end up at the wrong end of the barrel.
Again, because we're too stupid to figure out we should shoot the criminal. Or maybe it's that we're too stupid to only shoot an identified threat?
I wish society could evolve at a faster rate into one that is non-violent...
So do I. But ramming unConstitutional laws down our throats is not the way to speed up the evolution of the human species.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have introduced compromise legislation to close the gun-show loophole. heIt will be offered as an amendment to the gun-manufacturers immunity bill expected to come up for a vote this session. In addition, an amendment to renew the automatic weapons bill is expected to be attached.
Have you ever even read the legislation you froth at the mouth over? Wait, of course not. You're a whinny, stupid, liberal blissininny who probably gets every drop of information from the Brady Campaign. Why do independent research and use critical thinking skills when the state, er, gun control groups can do it for you?

Sickening, enraging, and to be honest, down right dangerous. :fire:

[semf]

semf, just a quibble:

We don't licence cars; we licence drivers.

Yeah, Cuch, I know but I had to go back and change from registration to license because of her original staement.





Like motor vehicles, I want them to be licensed.

[cuchulainn]

semf.

Point out her error. It's one more wedge under her convictions. Something along the lines of:

"Leaving aside the fact we don't license cars (we register them)..."

[Erik]

Tag - you're anti-Second Amendment.

[NIGHTWATCH]

I want guns under lock and key

:fire:


Yeah, and some want gays under lock and key. Some want christians under lock and key. Some want muslims under lock and key. Some want liberals under lock and key. Some want journalists under lock and key. Some want ....

STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MY FREEDOM LADY. :banghead:

[semf]

O K Cuch I edited it to include your observation and sent it. I'm so exited , my first step toward RKBA activism.
I actually got the argument from a gun mag some time ago. I rewrote it from memory but I think I got all the pertinent points mentioned in the article. Which was if I remember correctly an invitation to use the argument in e-mail the next time some idiot compared auto ownership with gun ownership

[CaesarI]

Whether it is right or wrong to be radical, sounding radical to the general public will not help our cause. Regretably, this is something I had to learn the hard way. Apparently I had a reputation for "foaming a the mouth" I still hold the same beliefs, I just try and make them sound less "radical" now. A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down.

-Morgan

[Don Galt]

I have that same reputation. Some people are just irrational-- they think anyone who would wnat to have a gun is psychologically unsound. I don't bother to try sugar coating it to get them to understand, I just don't talk to them.

The thing is, in the interests of not being "radical" americans close their minds to reality, they refuse to listen to reason--- because they have branded reason as irrational.

I think only by exposing them to reason can you hope that they will recognize it, and if they don't initially, try a different way. Find something they DO believe in, and show how consistency requires them to recognize your point.

But it is difficult-- the percentage of americans who will listen to reason is very small. And its hard to communicate with the ones who will.

Just look at the number of objectivists who oppose libertarianism. Not because of reason, but because of something Ayn Rand said, in conflict with her philosophy. And these are people who pledge undying devotion to reason.

There's no way to know what form of sugar will get them to listen. Best to assume they are rational and attempt to show them reason.

[jimpeel]

When I lived in Attleboro, MA my neighbor told me that he had a friend in the police department. During the course of my living there (2-1/2 years) he had seen a couple of the editorial opinion pieces and letters to the editor I had written. He told my neighbor that I was a radical, and possibly dangerous, person.

As time wore on, he found himself questioning the veracity of my letters and decided to investigate my assertions. He found that everything I said was true.

I found this out as I was moving out of the area back to CO and my neighbor told me that the guy was upset I was leaving. He said that he had come to rely on my letters for information and would miss them terribly.

Chalk up a convert for the good guys.

You're only a radical until your veracity is affirmed.