Hey Oleg - Did these guys get your permission?

From the article: "I have NEVER heard of any laws trying to prohibit shotguns, which is primarily a weapon for hunting deer, elk, bears."

Wow - he or she must be quite the hunter! NOT! Shotguns for hunting deer, elk, & bears? If only the author really had tried to use a shotgun to hunt a bear, perhaps he or she would not still have been around to write that load of tripe (My apologies to the companies that sell cow intestine for comparing their fine tripe product with the load of garbage on that website - also my apologies to our fine Sanitation companies that pick up our garbage for comparing our garbage with that website).

Mahatma Gandhi said:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Click to expand...

They wouldn't bother trying to discredit it if they didn't perceive it as a threat. Let them flame all they want, it only makes them look immature and childish, which is exactly what we want. As we win, they can no longer hide behind their lies and people will begin to see them as the emotionally motivated control freaks they really are.

Over 35 states are shall issue, the AWB was not renewed, and the Heller SCOTUS ruling is pending, and expected to atleast uphold that there is an individual right.

Ain't progress great?

... the emotionally motivated control freaks ...

Click to expand...

That sorta' gets at
the heart of it, no?

****

7,203

*,***

I have never read anything so inflammatory and blatantly unresearched. There are too many 'facts' being presented here that have no place in reality

Click to expand...

Welcome to the internet. A place where truth and content take a back seat to the 1st amendment.

Those that are looking for the truth will find it. Those who are looking for something to hate will find that also.

The world ain't that bad a place to be filled with so much hate.
I always enjoy the comparisons between fast cars, guns and big boy toys to the size of reproductive hardware.

Apparently another sexually confused individual who never got over their 1st semester pysc course.

That is going to take a big leap of faith to believe. Also, I have NEVER heard of any laws trying to prohibit shotguns, which is primarily a weapon for hunting deer, elk, bears.

Click to expand...

Really?!?!?!

/sarcasm

I would think rifles are the most popular.

...shotguns, which is [sic] primarily a weapon for hunting deer, elk, bears.

Click to expand...

Missed that statement first time through.

Shotguns are primarily bird (including trap] & SD guns.

Deer, elk & bear are better taken with rifles and revolvers.

(Well, OK, a griz in the tent can eat a 12 ga slug.
Otherwise, gim'me a .45-70.)

IMO, of course.

Not to rain on any parades here as we continually fight for the 2nd Amendment, it's important to remember the 1st Amendment. As such, Oleg's work is Copyrighted Intellectual Material, However, below is an excerpt from the USC 17, Chapter 1 §107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Click to expand...

What this all means is that they're entitled to comment on Oleg's work, and as such, I disagree that it would be a good idea for Oleg to ask them to remove their comments altogether.(I'm very glad that he's already posted that he doesn't mind their site). However, I would ask that they link to the original source material. Like Oleg said "Little seeds".

Linking the material would do at LEAST one very important thing. It would show that this is THE HIGH ROAD, and that we're open to criticism, rational discussion, and that guns aren't what should be feared.

So THR, I ask of you, which would you prefer? Trample someone's 1st Amendment rights, to safeguard the 2nd Amendment? or embrace those statements as an opportunity to share your perspective, experience and rationale. It is okay that others have opinions that differ from yours, and it's okay if your blood boils at their statement. It is also okay if you attempt to educate them, guide them and to share with them the ways that are right and good. If our argument is strong enough, and we gather people that are as vocal, opinionated and verbose as they are then we'll all wind up better for it.

Greg

...this is THE HIGH ROAD, and that we're open to criticism, rational discussion, and that guns aren't what should be feared.

Click to expand...

IMO, that is worthy of repetition.

... this is THE HIGH ROAD, and ... we're open to criticism, rational discussion, and ... guns aren't what should be feared.

Click to expand...

Makes my blood boil.
Then I realize the ignorance of the anti's is useful. I was talking to a friend of mine, who leans more toward the anti gun side, and his beef is with "submachine guns" asked him what he thought a submachine gun was. He replied by holding an invisible riffle and making a rat-a-tat-tat noise. Too easy. I told him they were effectively baned already. Completely baned in California.

We watched Bowling for Columbine together, It's been so much fun picking it apart with him. Poor guy, he's all confused. (even got him questioning gun buybacks now)

I for one am glad this site is using those banners. Without realizing it, they're giving our side a chance to counter them

They must have gotten all their info straight from wikipedia

Yo, get off of Wikipedia's butt.

It's a self-correcting source of information
with numerous good articles about guns.

Here's another about revolvers.

Objections? Put up, or shut up.


_____________

Added by edit, just for the record, even though this is a bit tangential to the thread and maybe a bit OT. Sometime soon I hope to start a thread in GGD to discuss this issue more thoroughly. Perhaps I was too vitriolic with my condemnation of Dookie's comments about Wikipedia. (I'm trying to be civil, Mr. Mod, really.) And, Dookie is a relatively new member of the THR forum. But his (her?) comment touched a nerve for me. I see too much Wikipedia bashing on THR for what I consider to be all the wrong reasons (which too often is an ideological or philosophical disagreement based more in values than fact).

Is Wikipedia perfect? No. There is no such thing as perfection. But neither should it be bashed in such a broad fashion. If people have issues with particular Wikipedia articles, fine. Specify what your problem is, then become part of the process to fix it. Wikipedia's process is open source. Anyone can contribute to construction of articles. There are processes in place by which errors are identified and corrected. Controversies and biases are not ignored (as they too often are in more formal printed volumes), but explicitly addressed. It may take a while, but the "truth" about a topic eventually filters to the top. And as knowledge changes and evolves, so do the articles about those idea being discussed.

IMO, it's the way an encyclopedia should work. It opens the knowledge base to the public, allowing the public to participate so that the biases of experts or one ideological group or another can't dominate (as in more formal published encyclopedias).

Please quit bashing Wikipedia. If you don't like the way it works, go be part of the process and fix what you don't like. Otherwise, you have little right to complain. IMO.

I read that weird feminist website's, errrrr, article? My eyes bugged out of my head, I started laughing hysterically... I couldn't believe it was not a parody! I really wish America was more decentralized instead of the giant continental empire it has morphed into because I think it would be much more reasonable to live in a smaller society that by and large shared my values than to have to politically battle untold hordes of people who share that author's mentality in a desperate effort to hold onto at least a few of my basic human rights. And they could all live in their own utopia where self defense takes the form of laughing at genitals.

Look at it this way:

For every person who googles and reaches that site and agrees with everything the anti- says, there'll be one person who thinks, "Man, those are some friggin cool pictures."

Even bad publicity is at least publicity.

Yet another "feminist" who would prefer that women be disarmed, helpless and forced to rely on men with guns, a.k.a. the police, in times of danger.

I am so glad I'm not one of those (such a "feminist" nor helpless disarmed female).

It seemed like the site wanted women to be victimized. As if laughing, screaming or similar useless measures would work. Whose side are they on? Handguns keep firing as long as the trigger is pulled? Wha? Im open to rational discussion (yeah, yeah, Im still in trouble for my Obama remarks), but darn! There is not one bit (not one!) of information on that site that is warranted, proven or correct. I am going to write that site and give corrections! Are they aware of how many rapes are PREVENTED by firearms?

I dont usually get into these threads cause I think folks like that website are really just looking for reaction- but I had to leave a comment on her site about just how bad their article was. Aside from the litiney of factual errors and misguided information, the final point she made was to tell the readers that if they were being raped they should laugh at the mans "member". What kind of sick advice is that?!?!?!? She eluds that that will make the man stop cause your laughing at him. .... uh .. or kill you. Any shread of information that could have been usefull was killed by that last statment.

I love how they spend the whole article lambasting guns, and then recommend a .357 Magnum for rape defense.

Frankly the best tool against a rapist is laughter. Men can't stand it when you laugh at their equipment. Call it a combination of dick-envy and male ego, but men get really upset when you laugh at their pathetic private little pistol.

Click to expand...

That sounds like an excellent way for a woman to get herself murdered.

To me it is less of a police state issue than a nanny state issue:

She spews:

"And rightly so. Only people who are responsible and knowledgable of the weapons they carry should be using them. We're not about to start handing out Desert Eagles to school children afterall, even in the event of a war children should be the last people given arms. We feel that the police and the military have the proper training, the responsibility and indeed the DUTY to use the best possible weapons for defending America."

Click to expand...

Now children of America, wear your helmets on those motorcycles; Caution: Coffee may be hot; Contents under pressure; Keep away from flames; Buckle up: It's the law; etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Some of these warnings and recommendations/laws save lives and may be warranted, but come on...

She states:

"Only people who are responsible and knowledgable of the weapons they carry should be using them."

Click to expand...

Who decides? I once had a discussion with an interesting college gal who espoused her liberal dogma on how people should be licensed before being able to become parents. I asked her who would decide the criteria for approval, and without blinking an eye, she said that she would be happy to do that.

She was so sincere and cute. Bless her heart. BUT she was severely misguided.

A lot of times when I get into a conversation like this, i feel like I am from a different planet or speaking an entirely different language. :banghead:

Anybody in the western states (but east of California) need a good worker? Preferably something outside?

Oh yes, that raises another point:

We feel that the police... [have] the DUTY to use the best possible weapons for defending America.

Click to expand...

The law and several supreme courts feel otherwise, ma'am.

The author is not an American (from Canada?) so I could not care what she is blathering about...well, I do feel a little embarrassed for her. Too be so wrong about so many things and looking like an idiot to boot.

Frankly the best tool against a rapist is laughter. Men can't stand it when you laugh at their equipment. Call it a combination of dick-envy and male ego, but men get really upset when you laugh at their pathetic private little pistol.

Click to expand...

Sad really...

He sounds like the type of coward who would say things to intimidate people but in reality is too attached to his tiny penis to actually risk his own life.

Click to expand...

Big flashy guns are for men with small dicks.

Click to expand...

Call it a combination of dick-envy and male ego, but men get really upset when you laugh at their pathetic private little pistol.

Click to expand...

Wow, somebody has penis on the mind.

I couldn't read the whole thing.....first amendment is ok, posting garbage like that, shouldn't be

Here is the response I just got from the website (my comment to them is below) But it appears to be a man who responded! Mind you he has not responded to my follow on email where I ask why they recomended a .357 , but no training or input from a firearms instructor. Plus I pointed out that the site the pics and text were taken from were not the NRA....

Here is what "Charles Moffat" <[email protected]> had to say....

You will note at the bottom of the page we allow people to make up their own
mind and we even recommend a specific firearm.

What we are criticizing is the ridiculous propaganda the NRA puts out.


On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:45 AM, <jminer@> wrote:

> Info=
> Name=John
> Subject=1. Comment
> Comments= Hi I am a male who considers himself in line with the feminist
> movment. I work at a University and am pretty open minded. However I
> followed a link to your site and must say some of the things you comment on
> are factually wrong. I am refering to your article on women owning guns and
> subverting the NRA. I do not support the NRA but I do support women who want
> to own firearms. Some of you comments are pretty far off base (like the
> fully automatic handgun- or the fact that you think magazine size determines
> whether a gun is automatic or not) These are just factually wrong and thus
> make the rest of your valid points seem worthless. I suggest you contact a
> womens firearm training class and speak with an instructor. At very least
> you may learn the proper terminology and what the facts are. Your opinion
> can remain the same, you can hate guns and owning them (beyond a "rusty old
> musket") but at least do some research. It discredits your whole
> publication. Thanks

They don't realize that the 2nd amendment is the foundation for their freedom to print such dribble.

Oleg Volk said:

I am ok with their site -- it spreads the word for us. A bit like birds eating my fruit and spreading the seeds.

Click to expand...

I agree.

A few thoughts, as this particular blog/website certainly isn't unique--

• You will not, nor can not, change the minds of the hardcore. Ie, no one will ever change my mind in regards to the Second Amendment.

• Most people are not hardcore on all issues--only on those issues in which they are educated. There are exceptions, of course.

• Dick Morris, who orchestrated the campaigns for Bill Clinton and who is regarded as one of the preminent political minds of our time, said it best when he recounted that "40% of voters are hardcore Democrats, 40% are hardcore Republicans. You'll never get them to change. If you want to win, you go after the 20% of Americans who are perpetually undecided."

• While this site is juvenile in many ways, I at least respect the passion that the creator of the site has to put all the work into it that she did. I found zilch that I agreed with, but that isn't necessarily the point.

• Be glad that sites like this exist. I once shocked, and enraged, Wayne LaPierre when I told him I admired Sarah Brady. I told hiim (LaPierre) that I admired Ms. Brady because she put the energy and passion of her convictions into her cause. In doing so, it allows us to clearly see who our (political) enemies are.

When we know that, we can formulate, develop and enact strategies and tactics to deal with them.

I detest fence-sitters; you know, the folks who look at you and nod in agreement when you tell them "nothing wrong with guns, it's people" but then they go and vote the exact opposite way because some else said "people are good, guns are bad."

Give me and enemy I know, can see, study and devise a strategy against rather than chasing shadows.

At least the young lady who developed this website and used Oleg's images picked several powerful images to use. Smart women will "get the message" of Oleg's images.

Jeff