[Bartholomew Roberts]

The lowest current estimate of gun owners in the United States that I have seen is 44 million. More commonly, I see estimates of 65 and even 80 million gun owners.

By definition, all of these people are over 21, without felony records or dishonorable discharge and generally possessed of all the traits that would allow you to vote.

In the 2000 elections there were 111 million registered voters. This means that gun owners could compose anywhere from 40% to about 78% of the electorate. With those kind of numbers, gun rights should not even be a issue any candidate would dare oppose; but we all know that isn't the case.

Our first, primary and most important problem is overcoming the divisions and schisms in our own ranks to get gun owners to vote their guns. Rather than converting blatant antis, we need to be out talking to the "I don't need one of those to hunt ducks" crowd and explaining calmly why they need to be concerned about issues that obviously don't concern them.

Yelling at them won't do any good, calling them names won't help. Until we can clearly state why our problems are their problems in a convincing fashion, we will get nowhere.

[Zundfolge]

Many Democrat stratigists believe being anti gun is part of what cost Algore the election ... just look at the growth of CCW in this country ... despite a few set backs (brady law, AWB and '86 Firearm Owner's "Protection" act) we seem to be winning.

still no reason to relax

[gun-fucious]

prolly 5 million of the gunowners don't vote in elections

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

There are approx 5 million serious gun owners out of that 44/65/80 million figure. These 5 million serious GOs are nearly one-issue voters. The remainder are not motivated. How do you reach out and attract them to the table when most of them probably do not exercise their right to vote anyway?

[Langenator]

The language is a bit over the top, but I'm sure ya'll can understad where the guy is coming from.

http://dillonprecision.com/vote.cfm?dyn=1&cookieClean=1
---------------------

If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!

Editor's Note: While we're certain that the sentiments expressed in this editorial don't apply to regular Blue Press readers, we're pretty confident that most of you know gun owners to whom these sentiments DO apply -- if so, please pass this article on. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, although ours are similar.

By Peter Caroline

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80 million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something to that group.

Sure, you drive around in a pickup truck with a gunrack and some hairy-chested bumper stickers, and you talk big at the gun shop or the Legion Hall. But will you shell out 35 bucks and join the NRA? Oh, you don't agree with the NRA's stance on this or that, or the NRA is too soft on something or too unyielding on something else? Or maybe long ago the NRA didn't send you your free cap or bullet key ring on time. Well, you know what? That's a dumb cop-out and you're an ???????. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is the only...I repeat ONLY, effective representation you have in the cesspool of Washington politics. Even the NRA's worst enemies -- YOUR worst enemies if you have the capacity to think about it -- agree that it's one of the most powerful lobbying forces on Capitol Hill. That means no one else fights your battles for you better, and if you don't understand that simple fact, you're too dumb to exist!

OK, you don't give a damn about the NRA but you still want to keep your guns. So why, in the name of all that is holy, do you vote for "gun-ban" candidates? Oh, you don't? So who does? Maybe it's all those other people who were voting while you were sucking a brewski and watching the game on TV. Or maybe you're a good union guy, and the union votes Democrat.

Some years ago, Mario Cuomo, a dedicated anti-gunner who happened to be governor of New York, described gun owners in a most uncomplimentary fashion. But the most damning thing he said about gun owners is that they don't vote, and therefore should not be considered as a factor in any election. How about that? Mario Cuomo is a liberal Democrat and, as such, is wrong about most everything, but he's absolutely right about you. And I can prove it. If you non-voting gun owners in New York State did get off your asses and vote like gun owners, obscenities like Mario Cuomo couldn't even be elected as dog catcher. The same goes for Charles Schumer; he wasn't bad enough as a congressman from Brooklyn; you dumb schmucks had to let him become a senator! What's next...Hillary?

Then there's my old home state of Massachusetts. Over one million Massachusetts gun owners must be really proud to claim Teddy Kennedy as their senator. And John Kerry, the Kennedy clone, is no better. The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, both gay and straight, is anti-gun. And you Bay State gun owners are the dildoes that put them in office! Because you sat on your fat asses, you've got Chapter 180 -- aptly named because it turns your gun rights around 180 degrees -- and you've got an attorney general who wants to be governor and thinks every handgun is a faulty consumer product. Once again, Massachusetts gun owners, where were you on Election Day?

Look at every state with asinine, repressive gun laws and a preponderance of anti-gun politicians -- California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland...to cite several horrible examples -- and you will find enough gun owners to form an unbeatable voting bloc, IF they would get their thumbs out of their butts and vote, for a change. Jeez, what a concept!

We all know the excuses: I'm too busy, my vote doesn't count, they're all crooks and it doesn't make any difference, I gave $5 to Quail Unlimited so I don't need to vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's the bottom line...your vote does not count if you don't use it. If you don't vote, then effectively you are on the same side as Rosie (I'm-not-a-hypocrite) O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Bill and Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer and every other low-life bottom feeder who knows what's best for you. If you don't vote like a gun owner, you are a butt-boy for the anti-gunners, and you bend over forward to please them.

Think about it. 75-80 million gun owners in this country; only 3.6 million NRA members, and who knows how many active pro-gun-voting gun owners. You can argue all you want about your inalienable rights. Rights are like body parts; they only work if you exercise them. And yours are looking pretty flaccid right now. If you don't vote in the next election, your enemies will elect a president who will be able to name three or four new Supreme Court justices. Which means that by the 2004 election, you will have no guns. And shortly after that, you will have no vote and no rights. And you know what? If you let that happen, it will be exactly what you deserve.

[esheato]

In the 2000 elections there were 111 million registered voters. This means that gun owners could compose anywhere from 40% to about 78% of the electorate. With those kind of numbers, gun rights should not even be a issue any candidate would dare oppose; but we all know that isn't the case.

But....A lot of the anti voters are centrally located (big cities) and they elect anti politicians. Of course, big city politicos get more news coverage (not necessarily new coverage, but a larger than normal audience) than rural candidates. We all know what happens when you get a bunch of anti's together...laws get pushed through, policies get applied. Definitely not the way it should be, but it's the way it is.

Just something to consider....

esheato..

[Solinvictus70]

The issue of gun control is DOA for 2004. Dean is paying the same lip service to the AWB as Dubya, but if elected, is likely to leave the issue alone as he favors gun laws returning as a state issue. Handgun Control Inc., operated by Republican Sarah Brady, is running on its last fumes and had to incorporate the Million Mommies to keep the latter viable. Face it, the Democrats learned their lesson in 2000 and will not make the same mistake.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

If gun owners VOTE, then 2A-friendly candidates win. Do you really believe that ALL people in urban areas are sheeple? The majority of voting Americans are GUN OWNERS. All they have to do is get off the couch, quit making excuses, and vote!

ps. Thanks for the article, Langenator

[Abenaki]

Most of the gun owners that I know don't vote.
When I ask why, the answers I get range from " my vote don't count.
to, They can't take away my guns! We have the second admendment!"

The ones that do vote....most vote anti gun. When I ask why, the two answers I get most of the time are "I aint voting for no damn republican! "Or "They can't do that, we have the second admendment!"
I live in California, most gun owners that I know voted for gray davis the second time!!!!!!!! You should hear how many of them call me a liar when I tell them that they can't buy a handgun.....because they have not taken a state aproved safty course!!! Then I tell them to try it. They then come back with there head hung low, saying somthing like "I didn't know that was a law!"

But they still will not vote for their gun rights!
Abenaki......fed up with gun owners!!!!!!!!

[Mark Tyson]

Yeah, and how many of those millions of gun owners believe in "common sense" gun control, like throwing someone in prison for having a scary looking gun? Millions of gun owners don't give a damn about what happens to your handgun or "assault weapon" as long as they can keep their side by side fowling piece or their three thousand dollar engraved skeet shooting shotgun. Some of these traitors are even members of the NRA. They're easy to recognize: "I support the second amendment, but I don't think you need a (fill in the blank)".

Paul Begala, Tom Diaz and Diane "Skeletor" Feinstein are gun owners if I'm not mistaken. Not so sure about Tom but I heard he had a handgun, even while he writes a book admonishing us to outlaw all handguns. Sarah Brady also has a .30-06 she bought for her son. These people are all among those gun owners you mention.

[feedthehogs]

As a twenty five year proponent for voting and gun rights, spending month after month at the local gun shows trying to get gun owners and hunters involved, I can say with full authority...

MOST GUN OWNERS SUCK !

[whoami]

Hehehehe......never ceases to amaze me.

I've had gun owners tell me that mag capacity limits, smart guns, and assault weapons bans are good things because they help protect people.

I've had life members of the NRA tell me that the Lautenberg ban was a good thing and should be kept on the books.

I've heard time and time again from gun owners that it doesn't concern them as 'they' aren't coming for their guns.

I used to try and debate them, but gave up as it'd never work. Generally put, I'd get to a certain point in the discussion, and they'd just come out and say 'I don't care'. I'm to the point where I honestly think that these folks won't see the light until the cops are knocking on their door asking them to turn something in.......

[Don Galt]

On this very forum people have said that the AWB and Bush's extention of it are good things because they help domestic gun makers and punish foriegn ones.

But its not just gun owners-- its most americans. Most americans have this vague relationship with politics-- they don't care, or are disgusted, or are "too busy" to get involved.

So they tend to vote by party. The listen to what the republicans or the democrats are saying this week and pick one. They never bother to notice that the republicans raise taxes and grow the size of the government while democrats sometimes do the opposite (under clinton, the federal payroll shrank). They never bother to notice that democrats often enact racist policies and republicans are often less racist.

And then they get wrapped up in their issue. I think most people are single issue voters. Most democrats I know think that republicans will ban abortion (probably right) and will not consider them because of that one issue. I won't speak for what most republicans think, but I think most of htem are single issue voters as well.

Less than %50 of the eligible voters vote, and let me tell you, the candidates we get to choose from universally SUCK. Ron Paul aint' running for president anytime soon. Why is that? He'd make an excellent presdient, but the republican leadership will never let him run. The democrat candidates are equally as bad.

Until all americans wake up and start paying attention the republcian and democratic wings of the socialist party will continue raising taxes, removing liberty -- both gun, and such things as the patriot act, due process, free speech, etc. etc.

I think things are going to continue this way until something serious happens-- either an extended depression (getting more and more likely thanks to our adventurer in chief), or some major catastrophy or miscarriage of justice that actually wakes people up.

How many of you were woken up by Ruby Ridge or Waco?

Until americans-- the mass-- wakes up and recognizes they've been sold a bill of goods -- by both parties-- things will continue they way they are.

That's why I welcome all these things-- Silveiera-- even if it goes against us is a good thing. The war on Iraq, the PATRIOT act, these are good things as long as they wake people up.

Its inevitable that we will reach a tipping point. I just hope it happens soon enough that I can still be alive after freedom is restored to this country -- and that I survive the chaos in the interim.

I don't see any other way. The state ignores us, and gets away with it-- look at the police raid of that school in SC. Nothings going to happen there-- they know they don't have to do anything other than say "we're investigating" until the hubub dies down.

If someone has another plan for restoring liberty, lets hear it. I think we'd all love to hear, and get behind, a better plan!

But its not just gun owners. ITs americans. Americans are content with the way things are going becuase they don't see what's happening yet. And since this has been going on for at least 70 years (Both economically, and on the gun issue, and even the war on drugs has been going on that long)... I don't think they're going to wake up soon unless something big happens, or the tipping point is close.

I hope there's a better plan out there.

[labgrade]

I share a huge frustration with the "majority of gun owners." Mostly, they have no clue, & too, many of of "most strident supporters" are of the "let's just enforce the current laws on the booksw" folks - which dusgust me to no end.

Sell-outs, lackies, & fer God's sake, how can you even hold that point of view!?

You would sell out your own "cache of weapons" (if you had a clue), you would encourage the newly-inspired NICS (for a "more quick" violation of your rights & registration of every purchase), a transcript of every purchase, .... why the hell not? Let's just go back to the registration of every ammo purchase?

Wouldn't it just save one life?

Nope. It didn't.

You younger-folk (&older sell-outs), what the hell did the 'GCA '68 do with the registrastion of every purchase of the billions of .22LR ammo, the cost of registering every buy of any ammp?

Nothing. None. Zip. Nada.

The same will be accomplished by your buying into extra NICS checks for "felons," or anybody else.

You are buying into a false philosophy. None of these "gun safety-anythings" does anything to promote your safety.

You do! through your prficiency with firearms, your dedication to public safety, your study of current law & your diligence.

Laws don't, cops don't .... YOU do.

[igor]

Hope Art's grammaw doesn't frequent the Dillon site...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

On this very forum people have said that the AWB and Bush's extention of it are good things because they help domestic gun makers and punish foriegn ones.

Please point me to the thread where anyone said anything like this or learn to refine your reading comprehension skills.

[Mark Tyson]

He said on this forum, not on this thread.

[Black92LX]

By definition, all of these people are over 21, without felony records or dishonorable discharge and generally possessed of all the traits that would allow you to vote.

I believe it would be 18. i personally own guns and vote yet i am not 21.

[MoreTEN]

I being a norwegian, and not an american, I do not have the same laws as you.

The crime in Norway is on a rise, and the use of guns in crime rises.

I dont see the point in owning a gun, if its not for hunting. The use of guns for protection seem to me like feeding crimininals with the right to own guns, and an opening for youngsters to get a hold of guns from their home.

:evil:

[Mark Tyson]

The problem is most members of any movement are passive and only a few are passionate about the issue. Think about how many issues you hold an opinion about and aren't really passionate about them. You probably have only partially informed opinions about them. What we have to do is try to give people a stake in defending our rights.

By the way, don't feed the

http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/troller.jpg

[Black92LX]

The use of guns for protection seem to me like feeding crimininals with the right to own guns, and an opening for youngsters to get a hold of guns from their home.

Thing is criminals have the guns anyway.

And as for the youngsters, that's what the safe is for. and i have been handling guns since i was about 7 and never once had a problem. It's all about education teaching the children how to respect them. One day the answer to the question why do you own guns? will be For The Sake of My Children.

[ksnecktieman]

Moreten? If someone broke into your house while you were home, could you drive him out? If you were at work, could your wife or mother? Are you sure that you want gun control? For you too? Or just everyone else?

[Andrew Rothman]

This is a tough one for me. I feel no more comfortable being a one-issue gun voter than I do being a one-issue abortion voter.

The world is complex, and so are the issues facing our country.

I believe that GW was the best candidate on guns.

But I hate what he did with the Patriot Act, abortion, Iraq (both fighting and spending) and stem cell research. (And please, don't flame me or try to change my mind in this thread -- it's not the subject.)

The same thing goes for my local candidates. Unfortunately, we as citizens don't get a line-item veto.

In Minnesota, I think that Paul Wellstone was an absolutely principled man with whom I disagreed in most respects, and that Norm Coleman was a weasel slimeball who shared many (but by no means all) of my political beliefs.

So it comes down to this: Do I want the Second Amendment, or the First, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, etc.?

It bums me out big time that I have to make choices like this every time I vote.

And I do vote. Sometimes even for gun-grabbers, as the lesser of two evils.

Gun owners suck? I suck? The whole :cuss: system sucks!

[sw442642]

I agree - the mythology is that all gun owners are social conservatives and should all band together to vote for the GOP. Unfortunately, most gunowners are gunowners in the sense that all toaster owners are toaster owners.

Also, the GOP is full of much social conservative crap that is antifreedom. Who needs that?

The people who call for all gun owners to get together assume that a progun candidate will also support their conservative social agenda and get the gays, the Blacks, blah, blah also.

The test would be the someone like Dean if he were really proactive RKBA but a liberal democrat vs. Bush, who is at best luke war on guns. He can get a big one for abortion and tax cuts though. No real action on the RKBA but Aschroft can cut liberties and cover stone mammary glands to protect morality.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The people who call for all gun owners to get together assume that a progun candidate will also support their conservative social agenda and get the gays, the Blacks, blah, blah also.

On the contrary, you don't have to buy into a conservative social agenda to support gun rights. You don't even have to vote Republican. Imagine what a huge shot in the arm it would be for the Second Amendment if Democrats stopped campaigning gun grabbers for national offices simply because their fellow gun-owning Democrats stopped nominating them in the party primaries?

[Mark Tyson]

On the contrary, you don't have to buy into a conservative social agenda to support gun rights. You don't even have to vote Republican.

Damn straight.

Imagine what a huge shot in the arm it would be for the Second Amendment if Democrats stopped campaigning gun grabbers for national offices simply because their fellow gun-owning Democrats stopped nominating them in the party primaries?

Ah, dare to dream.

We have to reach out to these non traditional gun owner groups if we want to win this fight.

[Don Galt]

Unfortunately, too many of you hate those non-traditional gun owner groups.

You can't spend much time here without seeing a lot of venom directed at liberals, non-christians, gays, democrats, etc.

But there are democrats who support gun ownership.

And there were a HELL OF A LOT OF REPUBLICANS who voted for the AWB.

The problem is its too easy to fall into the false illusion that republicans support the RKBA and democrats don't.

And so too many people make that oversimplification and scream bloody murder when you point out that their cherisched president bush has banned legal guns by fiat and that the AWB was a direct result of his father's banning of them.

[Mark Tyson]

Well maybe they need to listen to Oleg when he writes:

In talking to people, please keep other issues out of the discussion. We are in a fight for our way of life: please do not drive away your squad-mates, even if you do not like them personally. That they are on your side is all the recommendation that they need. These people are already our allies: do not drive them away!

Good advice.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don Galt - I am still waiting on you to clarify your earlier remarks by showing the thread in this forum where anyone claimed what you stated.

and that the AWB was a direct result of his father's banning of them.

In the meantime, I'd like to point out that not only did the Assault Weapons Ban legislation get introduced in 1989. It was defeated every year from 1989 until 1994, despite the fact that Republicans were in a minority in Congress.

You would think that if the AWB was a direct result of the ATF redefinition of 1989 that excluded some semi-automatics from import as non-sporting, it might have passed a little earlier don't you?

Or was that just a little partisan hyperbole that slipped out?

[Don Galt]

Bart--

I am not interested in chasing down your misrepresentations of my statements. You can generate them much faster than I can dispute them, and nobody else really cares.

AS to the executive order that was signed in 1989, that was not a unilateral action of the ATF, that was an executive order.

[spartacus2002]

Just wait til the antigunners start describing scoped hunting rifles as "high-powered sniper rifles, with ammo FAR MORE POWERFUL than assault rifles".

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am not interested in chasing down your misrepresentations of my statements.

Despite our obvious differences, I am not interested in misrepresenting your statements and will happily apologize for any post where I have significantly altered the meaning of your post if you will be so kind as to point it out.

[iamkris]

All -- good job at ignoring the troll.

[MoreTEN]

ksnecktieman wrote:

"Moreten? If someone broke into your house while you were home, could you drive him out? If you were at work, could your wife or mother? Are you sure that you want gun control? For you too? Or just everyone else?"

I dont need guns. And I feel that if theres more guns around, then there is more crime with guns going on. If america, like norway, only had guns for hunting, then crime with guns have been cut in half.

I know that this may sting a bit, but I feel that USA is on the wrong track. I love the people & the country, but I feel that there is something wrong at the heart of it all.

Look at the deathpenalty. Why use voilence against voilence, when the aim is that crime doesnt pay?

Why alow guns to the people, when guns kill people? I know the frase "guns dont kill people, I do!", and by that saying that people do. But if you go down to the core, its guns that kill people.

Look at weed/mariuhana, thats something made by nature. It alone have never killed anyone, but its banned by law. Why? Is that freedom? But guns, that kill most people all over the world alone, is something you can buy by law?

If you fear for your life, then theres something wrong with your country, its not a question of having the right to use a gun or not. Why not spend that money you used on the gun and bullets, to install some securety?

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

MoreTEN

It is called tradition, it is our heritage, it is god-given right for defense, it is insurance against tyranny,......and so on. It is part intellect and part emotion.

I do not expect you to understand since you are not an American.

[Don Galt]

MoreTen--

You're giving your impression, but it appears to be based on what you would speculate would happen.

In america, the more guns in an area in the hands of regular people, the less crime. The more concealed carry permits in the county, the less crime in that county. Since we have concealed permits, we can compare crimes per 1000 population from one county to the next and see that the county with more permits per 1000 people has fewer violent crime per 1000 people.

Criminals don't want to face armed victims.

When you advocate taking guns away from the law abiding, you are literally saying that a woman does not have the right to defend herself from rape.

[Wedge]

I vote pro-RKBA and have been working hard at swaying my wife to do the same. The largest problem is that she is a public school teacher, so the politicians with the education plans that she favors are generally anti. I guess we just balance each other out.

[MoreTEN]

Don Galt wrote:

"You're giving your impression, but it appears to be based on what you would speculate would happen."

What I "speculate" in is happening, and its been going on for a while.

No, I dont understand what it is to live or be an american, but to some exctent I do. Im a human, and norway and usa aint that different. In some way, noray is a mini-usa.

The american history is built upon voilence, so its not strange. Remember, USA is the only western land were you have the deathpenalty.

But, lets stick to the point. The point is that you will never get rid of crime by having a gun. Yes, criminals fear guns. But the criminal does not know if you have a gun or not, when he/she is entering the house. The criminal will always take its chances.

Crime is to be fought by your gouverment, not by your gun. That is anarchy! Can you name one land in the history of the world that has survived by anarcy, or the way of the gun?


"When you advocate taking guns away from the law abiding, you are literally saying that a woman does not have the right to defend herself from rape."

First, Im not an advocate, Im just plain old simple me. But when someone says:"..you are literally saying that a woman does not have the right to defend herself from rape.", I can not understand why you say that. Why?

Is the only way for her to defend herself from rape by using the gun? Is that what you say, or is that what youve been told or just whant me to belive? What about a stungun? What about teargass? What about learning good old selfdefense? It works!

[MoreTEN]

7.62FullMetalJacket wrote:

"It is called tradition, it is our heritage, it is god-given right for defense, it is insurance against tyranny,......and so on. It is part intellect and part emotion."

I would say its all emotion.

Some tradition must just die as time goes by, just for the sake of the world, and your children.

Insurance from tyranny? Is that by law?

"I do not expect you to understand since you are not an American."

And by that I can say that I do not expect you to understand since you are not Norwegian.

[Mark Tyson]

As I understand it the '94 federal AWB was modeled on both California's ban and the '89 import restrictions. But if I'm not mistaken it all goes back to GCA 68 where the phrase "sporting purposes" was first introduced. That's the reason we can't have bayonet lugs - a bayonet is a military fixture, and guns useful for the military are what they want to deny us. Of course a lot of hunting rifles and sporting rifles in the US have been pressed into service as military sniper rifles, so the hunters aren't safe either. We have to kill this sporting purposes nonsense because as we can see with the proposed expanded ban they will not stop there - they will ban whatever they damn well feel like. As it says in the law just because a gun is designed with sporting purposes in mind, this will not exempt it.

Funny I didn't read anything about sports in the 2nd amendment . . .

http://pic2.picturetrail.com:80/VOL7/1543046/2949508/37954939.jpg

[Don Galt]

"Crime is to be fought by your gouverment, not by your gun. That is anarchy! Can you name one land in the history of the world that has survived by anarcy, or the way of the gun?"

Yes. Somalia. Somalia threw off its dictator and achieved freedom by personal ownership of firearms.

In contrast, the germans were disarmed by the Weimar Regime, allowing the Nazis to easily take control.

You said governemnt fights crime-- well, not in my experience. When a crime happens here, the "government" in the form of police show up about a half our later and take a report.

Doesn't do you any good when you're dead and doesn't prevent the crime.

On the other hand, the criminal who breaks into your house who doesn't know if you have a gun is going to run when you see one.

GET THIS STRAIGHT: MOST CRIMES STOPPED BY GUNS ARE STOPPED WITHOUT THE GUN EVER BEING FIRED!

That's a fact.

You're just giving us a lot of prejudices. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just uninformed. IF you look at the fact, guns prevent crime. AS I pointed out, the more guns in private citizens hands, the less crime. And the less tyranny.

You say she doesn't have the right to defend herself as she sees fit. Saying so is advocating her being raped. Not all wome needs guns, some women are big enough that the average man can't take them. Some women may prefer teargas, a stun gun, or a ninja keychain. IT doesn't matter to me--if she wants to walk around with a broadsword, its her right.

You are the one who says she can't choose the mose effective way to defend herself.

[hvengel]

This (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/855988/posts) speaks to the same point but backs it up with data that compairs gun show mailing lists to voter registration lists. It turns out that something like 5.6% of those attending gun shows are registered to vote! Sad but true. If gun owners would just get off thier butts and vote gun control would no longer be an issue.

_________________________________________________

California Gun Owners Blamed For The Loss of Gun Rights
GunNewsDaily.com | March 3,2003 | Ralph Weller

Posted on 03/03/2003 12:22 PM PST by Michael Pistone

I wish we could say it isn't so but it is. The editor of Gun News Daily wrote the article below. It's time Gun Owners wised up and realized that either you participate in the process or get run over by it.

California Gun Owners Blamed For The Loss of Gun Rights

Gun Owners Are All Bark and no Bite! By Ralph Weller Editor, GunNewsDaily.com March 3, 2003 - It has been suspected for quite some time that gun owners were generally all mouth and no action. But, we really didn't understand the gravity of the situation until we received an email from John Brantuk, 2002 candidate for the 56th Assembly District in Southern California. John is upset, and he has every right to be. John had a shot of winning his district had he received the pro-gun vote. Southern Californians don't need to be told how pro-Second Amendment John is. Suffice it to say, he's one of those rare types who makes protecting our Second Amendment rights a top priority in his personal and public life. But, the information he sent in his email is the type of information that makes the hearts soar of gun grabber Don Perata and other liberals of his ilk in Sacramento. It is the kind of information liberals know about, but very few pro-gun types are willing to acknowledge. So who got the pro-gun vote instead of John Brantuk? The answer is most disappointing.

John took a look at a list of people that regularly attended gun shows in his district. He compared the attendee list to voter registration lists to determine how many of the 12,000 gun show attendees were registered to vote.

Do you want to guess the results? Would you say only half are registered? You would be considered an eternal optimist if that was your guess. How about 30%? Well, you're getting closer, but you still have a long, long way to go. How about 10%. No, you're still too high. No... I'm not kidding. Try about 670 people. That's a whopping 5.6% of gun show attendees are registered to vote. Now, of those 670, an optimistic number of those who voted would probably range at about 50%. That means of the 12,000 gun show attendees only about 335 probably voted. Ok, that's being a little harsh. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that all 670 voted. Somehow inflating the number won't make most feel all that much better about the whole thing.

The problem is, there is no pro-gun vote in California. John didn't get the pro-gun vote, but neither did anyone else! It doesn't exist because the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't vote. And the liberals know it and act upon it with impunity. They don't fear California gun owners! Why would they? Gun owners certainly won't vote them out of office!

Are John Brantuk's results indicative of the rest of California? Sure they are. In fact, most professional pollsters use around 1000 people to achieve very accurate results. John had 12,000 gun owners on a list and registered voting lists that simply don't lie. This is pure data. Not thoughts, not polls, not desires. It's the real thing, and unfortunately it is fact!

The bottom line is gun owners could own California if they vote. John Brantuk would be in the state assembly this very day protecting gun owner's rights along with dozens of other newly elected pro-gun legislators. Instead, gun owners lament the demise of Second Amendment rights and take NO ACTION to resolve it. Gun owners are the problem in California. They're all bark and no bite.

Gun owners avail themselves of the right to participate in freedom of speech on the net, but do nothing to preserve it. They complain endlessly about erosion of Second Amendment rights, but do nothing to change it. Gun owners claim they'll have to pry their guns from their 'cold dead hands' before allowing them to be confiscated. But, gun owners don't vote because they're afraid to be on a government list? California gun owners aren't scaring anyone with their bravado, least of all liberal politicians. If gun owners can't demand their rights in the voting booth, it is easily assumed they'll fold like the paper tiger they're perceived to be when they come knocking for their guns.

On the other hand, those who do vote deserve a medal because they're a rare breed of people. Very rare as the numbers go. They are so out of the mainstream they could almost be classified as a radical fringe group. Those who don't vote deserve a bigger medal hung around they're neck and a short plank into the Pacific because that's all they're worth... fish food.

A lot of people think erroneously that California is hopeless because liberals outnumber conservatives. It's clear gun owners outnumber themselves. Gun owners are engaged in an act of self-flagellation. They love victims and they are it. They wallow in their own self- pity claiming this or that pro-gun group, Northern California liberals, or the Brady Bunch are their downfall.

Here it is point blank. There is no one else to blame. 'We have met the enemy and it is us.' Only when gun owners finally take charge of their destiny will all this anti-gun nonsense come to an end. Until then, hope and pray gun owners take action at the polls before they knock on your door demanding your firearms. If California reaches that point, it's too late because most of you cannot be depended on to do anything. You've already proven that.

John Brantuk is going to run again in 2004. For the life of me, I can't imagine why he would waste his time if he can't count on gun owners to get him into office. But John is a driven man with a vision of saving gun rights in California. If you are inclined, there are few people in this state that deserve gun owner's support more than John. Visit his site and donate. Then register to vote online using the link below and start participating in the only process that will make a difference. VOTE! https://ovr.ss.ca.gov/votereg/OnlineVoterReg

One final comment. Can you imagine John's shock as he matched up gun show attendees to voter lists and recognized fellow gun owners in the community who "support" him, only to find the people who talk a good game aren't even registered to vote? A lesser person would have thrown in the towel and called it quits. Don't be a big mouth spouting about how no one in California is protecting your rights. It starts with you. If you can't do anything about it, don't expect your neighbors to do something. They probably aren't voting either so it's up to you, the individual gun owner to make a difference.

[Mark Tyson]

Well that is a truly scathing indictment of gun owners, far more so than all the sound and fury of the gun grabbers.

[moa]

During WWII Norway tried to use "government" to resist one of the biggest criminals of all time, Adolph Hitler. A lot of good it did them. They were occupied by the Nazis for almost five years.

They might have been much better served with an armed population willing to fight like the heavily armed Swiss who had every intention of doing againts Herr Hitler and Friends. Hitler knew it too and took it to heart.

Let me make one little comment that might sting some people on this Board.

According to the US Dept. of Justice crime statistics, people of "color" commit violent crime at a rate eight times greater than European Americans. European Americans commit crime at the same rate, or lower, than most European countries.

Of the 2 million people in our prisons and jails, 30% are foreign born. Most are probably illegal aliens, and they are most likely not from Europe or Canada.

The TROLL has no clue what he/she is talking about and should be ignored.

[tfurey19]

Lets face it, our biggest enemy in this fight is gun owners who don't care that there are people out there that want to put them in jail or see them removed from the planet in any way necessary.

So here is the solution.... A nation wide effort by the NRA to reach out to all FFL dealers asking that they only sell guns to NRA members or those who are members of other groups (GOA, etc). This policy may get people more involved in that they will be getting informations and be on the contact lists of the orgs that they belong to.

But lets say that doesn't increase the voting numbers. What good is it than? Simple..$$$$. Let all those that freeload off our efforts pay for them. We would have hundreds of millions of dollars to fight with. Think of it like this. The NRA only uses about 20 million to help pro-gun candidates and look how large they have become. The extra revenues would go a very very long way.

The problem is that there is too much acceptance of apathy amongst gun owners. We all need to make a concerted effort in getting others involved. They must at the least be members of the NRA and vote. It would be nice if gun dealers would impliment the above proposal. The problem is that too many seem ambivalent to the fact that the antis are trying to put them out of business and take the food from their family's mouths. If there is any group dumber than gun owners its gun dealers. I think over 75% lost their licenses while Clinton was in office, yet they still don't care. Perhaps boycotts of dealers are in order.

[Gordon Fink]

So here is the solution.... A nation wide effort by the NRA to reach out to all FFL dealers asking that they only sell guns to NRA members or those who are members of other groups (GOA, etc).

My favorite gun shop is doing exactly this.

~G. Fink

[Mark Tyson]

A nation wide effort by the NRA to reach out to all FFL dealers asking that they only sell guns to NRA members or those who are members of other groups (GOA, etc).

That could put a lot of gun stores out of business. How about a discount for NRA members(or GOA, SAF, JPFO you get the idea)?

[Don't feed HIM]

[greyhound]

We have to kill this sporting purposes nonsense because as we can see with the proposed expanded ban they will not stop there - they will ban whatever they damn well feel like.

Exactly. The concept of self defense is so deeply grounded in our culture that even if all we are left with is "hunting rifles" they will still be used to defend ourselves.

Like at what our pal "MoreTen" said:

If america, like norway, only had guns for hunting,

I may be reaching a little here, but in other countries, that either never had a self-defense mindset, or have had it erased over time, the thought that a gun can be used to defend yourself against either a criminal or a tyrant is "crazy talk".

That's why every time I hear a politician (R or D) say they don't want to take away "hunting rifles" I get hot. Yeah, you might not want to take 'em away (yet), but can we keep them loaded, in our homes? Or like in Britain and Australia do we have to leave them at the "hunting club"?

Please, write the letters - lets's not let them get anywhere near "hunting rifles only" territory.....

[tfurey19]

Comparitively speaking the cost is very cheap for a membership in something.

Look I'm from NYC and there are guys here that have owned guns for 10 years and they don't have memberships in anything. They have thousands invested in guns and live in a city that wants nothing more than to take them away and imprison their owners yet they don't join. Is it for fear that their will appear on some list? Its a little late for that they have licenses and have all their guns registered yet still they don't see a need to join. There are millions of people like this all over the country. the only way they will ever join is if they have to.

What really angers me is that there are people here that join that DON'T OWN GUNS! They join to protect OUR rights. This is a disgrace to gun owners.

In my opinion gun owners that don't join, vote or care should be banned from buying, ridiculed by their fellow shooters, whatever it takes to wake them up before it is too late.

Living in NYC I know what all your lives will be like if things don't improve. this really isn't a game. We are facing the biggest fight ever on many fronts over the next year. If we don't pull together all will be lost. I know this from experience.

Please support those who use common sense background checks: No NRA Card No Gun

[Mark Tyson]

What really angers me is that there are people here that join that DON'T OWN GUNS! They join to protect OUR rights. This is a disgrace to gun owners.

My brother has one gun that he never shoots and in fact, since he's out of the country, has no access to. He's still an NRA member because he believes in it. Yes, it is a discgrace to all those gun owners who say someone else will do it, or who just don't care.

[MoreTEN]

Dear mao, you wrote:

"During WWII Norway tried to use "government" to resist one of the biggest criminals of all time, Adolph Hitler. A lot of good it did them. They were occupied by the Nazis for almost five years.

They might have been much better served with an armed population willing to fight like the heavily armed Swiss who had every intention of doing againts Herr Hitler and Friends. Hitler knew it too and took it to heart."

Norway is a small country, and until we struck on oil, it was a rather poor country. We had a military, but were coup by Vidkun Quisling & co, king and gouverment fled to England. That way they could still fight against the nazis.

The resistance in Norway was big, we even stopped the nazis building the atombomb.

The north of Norway got most damage, when it was bombed and burned as the nazis moved further south, trying to escape the russian army that came over the borders up north.

[moa]

If I remember correctly, sabotuers blew up a heavy water plant the Nazis had in the works.

From what I have read, the Nazis where not anywhere as near in their development of the atomic bomb as compared to USA.

[Moparmike]

What really angers me is that there are people here that join that DON'T OWN GUNS! They join to protect OUR rights. This is a disgrace to gun owners.EXCUSE ME!?!?!? HOW IS SOMEONE JOINING A PRO-GUN ORGANIZATION WITHOUT OWNING GUNS DISGRACEFUL? I JOINED THIS BOARD WITH NARRY A BULLET TO MY NAME, AND YOU HAVE THE UNMITIGATED GAUL TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE OR A MEMBER OF A GUN ORGANIZATION!?!?!? HOW :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: -ING DARE YOU!!!!!

In my opinion gun owners that don't join (SNIP) should be banned from buying, ridiculed by their fellow shooters, whatever it takes to wake them up before it is too late.

(SNIP)

Please support those who use common sense background checks: No NRA Card No Gun.
People like you sicken me, and make me NOT want to join an organization. People who dont vote like gun owners should vote like gun owners, but not joining an organization to have rights REEKS of a certain well known political party that was in charge of Germany from 1936-1945, and a different one in charge of Russia for almost 70 years.:fire: :fire:

[Moparmike]

MoreTen, do THR a favor. Please put this image:

http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/photoshoped/troll_xing.gif

on all of your posts so we will know to ignore your posts. You have stated repeatedly your opinion on guns and in spite of the facts, common sense and logic we present to you :banghead:, you vehemently spew forth your incessant anti-American "I know better than you and your ignorant backward society full of cowboys" diatribes. I for one am sick of it, and it wouldnt hurt my feelings one friggin bit if you never visited this site again. :fire: :fire: :fire:



I feel better now. The screwed up thing is how much restraint I showed while flaming. Maybe its because I like staying on THR.

[Gordon Fink]

EXCUSE ME!?!?!? HOW IS SOMEONE JOINING A PRO-GUN ORGANIZATION WITHOUT OWNING GUNS DISGRACEFUL?

Mike, you misunderstand. He meant that it’s a disgrace to gun owners who don’t join.

~G. Fink

[MicroBalrog]

Can you name one land in the history of the world that has survived by anarcy, or the way of the gun?"


Two words:


Israel, 1948

[Don Galt]

Yes, Isreal and Somalia. And the US, in fact. And every country that has thrown off tyranny by revolution (And replaced it with liberty.)

Oh, and the idea that "the way of the gun" is "Anarchy" is a foolish one. Too many people use the word "anarchy" when they mean chaos. Please use Chaos when that is what you mean.

Anarchy is merely the absense of government, and there are countries which have had centuries of peace under anarchism.

What we have in america is most assuredly not anarchism-- it is a republic with a constitution to keep the democracy in check. It held out well for about 160 years, before we lost it.

Since Norway is not a free country even now, I think our 160 years stands up well in comparison.

[feedthehogs]

Mike,
Don't blow a gasket over MoreTen's posts. Having dealt with non-Americans for years, most don't understand our thinking and way of life.

Trying to get them to understand will make your head explode. It really doesn't matter anyway because they have no influence or voting rights in OUR country.

Just like a noisey child, ignore them and they will go away.

Be aggressive to the guns owners in this country who sit by and do nothing to help our cause.

But do it in a calm and understanding way. Don't let anti gun comments set you off.

[MicroBalrog]

And replaced it with liberty

<======

[MoreTEN]

Dear mao:

"If I remember correctly, sabotuers blew up a heavy water plant the Nazis had in the works."

Yes, and thats used to make the bomb.

"From what I have read, the Nazis where not anywhere as near in their development of the atomic bomb as compared to USA."

No one knows how close they where, but the point is that all this work stopped. This may have changed the ways of the war. If the nazis had buildt this bomd, they could done great damage and mayby won the war, or brought it to a holt.

[Mark Tyson]

EXCUSE ME!?!?!? HOW IS SOMEONE JOINING A PRO-GUN ORGANIZATION WITHOUT OWNING GUNS DISGRACEFUL?

Calm down. You misunderstand.

It is disgraceful that there are gun owners who are not in the NRA. Those who are in the NRA and do not own guns are commendable because of their commitment to liberty as a principle. These non gun owning NRA members put to shame those gun owners who are not members of a gun rights group.

There are also gun owners who do not belong to any formal group who nevertheless write letters and are otherwise active in the RKBA movement. These guys are in the same category.

What's disgraceful is the gun owners who don't lift a finger to protect our rights.

[moa]

MoreTEN, the American Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb was huge project costing at the time $2 billion and employing thousands of people. The crash Project produced both an uranium bomb and a plutonium bomb.

The Germans never had that kind of commitment to produce an atomic weapon.
Hell, in 1943 when Hitler's friend Albert Speer became armaments minister, he was shocked to find a basically peacetime economy competing with a wartime effort for resouces during a period of total war.

Bottom line, at the end of WWII the Germans were no where near producing an atomic weapon. Sorry, despite valiant partisan efforts, Norway did not save the world from Hitler armed with an atomic weapon, IF that is what you are inferring.

[MoreTEN]

Dear mao:

Read this:
"Water was dripping in a hydrogen plant at Rjukan in Telemark, Southern Norway, as it had done since1934. But this was no ordinary water, and no ordinary plant - it was the only facility in Europe that produced heavy water Link in large-scale volumes.

The Germans kept the plant under heavy guard during World War II - for good reason. The barrels of heavy water that were rolled out were sent to Germany, where they were used to control nuclear fission.

Following the occupation of Norway in the spring of 1940, it soon became clear that the Germans were interested in heavy water. By the start of 1942, production at new installations in Rjukan, based on a German method, increased to 100 kilos per month. Not long after, the Germans announced they wanted to increase output further."

and this:

"It was known in London and Washington that two German atomic physicists were working on nuclear fission, and it was assumed that heavy water had something to do with Hitler's threat of a secret weapon.

Norwegians in London assisted in the plans to sabotage the heavy water unit at the Vemork power plant at Rjukan, and photographs and sketches of the plant were sent to London by Norwegian contacts at the facility, in particular Jomar Brun, manager of the heavy water unit.

A huge political thriller began to unfold in 1943 and 1944. Was this a question of preventing the development of a nuclear weapon? Was this an arms race? In any case, the outcome could determine who won the war."

As you understand, this was a race. If the nazis had produced the atombomb before the americans, they could have won the war.



"Sorry, despite valiant partisan efforts, Norway did not save the world from Hitler armed with an atomic weapon, IF that is what you are inferring."

No, thats your way of twisting it. These are heroes, and they did something that changed the way of the war. If Hitler had produced the bomb, again, it could have changed the world as we know it. Of course this is of great importance, and if you dont see that, well, that your small minded. Sorry.

[moa]

MoreTen, tell me more. You said:

"The Germans kept the plant under heavy guard during World War II - for good reason. The barrels of heavy water that were rolled out were sent to Germany, where they were used to control nuclear fission."

What nuclear fission were the Germans trying to control?

[MoreTEN]

This plant was meant to make heavy water, only that, but heavy water is one of the key elements of making the bomb. I dont see your point, mao..

[jungleman]

I have drawen a line in the sand: I will not vote for anyone who tries to limit my firearm freedoms. Period.!!!!!

[Don Galt]

Jungleman--

Does that include people who don't try to undo limitations that are already there? Say, if they propose at least one bill a year to undo a previous limitation?

But I agree, I won't vote for someone who doesn't support liberty-- there are a lot of issues, like firearms, that will rule someone out. But fortunately, there are candidates who I can vote for.