Hb 4774 mi

[Geno]

Aren't you guys going a bit heavy-handed on shootingthebreeze?! We're here to pull folks our way. If we go too heavy-handed, we risk loosing the support we desperately desire...more flies with honey an' all that. I make public my apology to shootingthebreeze for advising that s/he "...grow-up..." in my previous post. Clearly I was errant, and it is I who has had to "...grow-up...". I won't make that mistake twice!

Geno

 

[Walkalong]

Well, I have definitely been hard on the message, as I am strongly against "common sense gun laws" because they are anything but common sense and only more attempts at chipping away at our freedoms and won't help us preserve the 2nd amendment, IMHO.

I do hope I have not been hard on shootingthebreeze personally, and only the message.

 

[pezo]

With the popularity and increase in shall issue and people licensed to carry. The extra million plus memebers added to the NRA. The recent court wins in favor of gun rights. The noted increase in shooter gun enthusiates particularly the newer generations. Every younger vet I know is extremely passionate of their gun rights. With the successful and unprecident recall of two politicians In a state that had gun restrictions shoved through. Now we have the Detroit chief of police on the cover of an NRA magazine. Highly publicized events of citizens using weapons to defend themselves. I see the beginning of the end for gun restriction groups. So why would we "give in" a little when pro gunners are essentially winning. That's like the nazi's telling the allies they need to quit before it gets worse, during the battle of Berlin.

 

[Geno]

Walkalong:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I get tired of these kinds of threads, trying to get someone on our side, when I frequently think the person is not sincere in their post.

Geno

 

[benEzra]

I did a half hour ago post a long response to various members because I had time but the site blocked me posting even though I had signed in.

I hope you will take the time to re-post it when you can.

I very much want to know whether you support restrictions on civilian "assault weapons", and if so, your rationale for banning the most popular civilian rifles in the nation, when rifles are consistently the least misused of all firearms.

I'd also like to know whether you support restrictions on over-10-round magazines (given that 15-round rifles have been mainstream since the 1860s/1870s, and over-10-round handguns have been mainstream since the 1930s).

And since you bring up "universal background checks", I'd be curious to know specifics. For example, do you believe it should be a crime to allow one's domestic partner to access the firearms in one's gun safe, if neither partner is a prohibited person (or heck, if your partner has a CCW and owns other guns)? Should it be a crime for a gun owner to go on a 10-day business trip without moving his/her guns out of their home or making their domestic partner leave the premises? Because those two scenarios are precisely what UBC proposals tried to make into Federal felonies last year, among other things.

The entire gun control movement since the late 1980s has been based on bait-and-switch tactics---talking up a rosy facade of safety and responsibility, while actually putting forward very ugly legislation that targets lawful and responsible ownership rather than criminal misuse. The proposals advanced in 2013, including the NY SAFE Act and the Colorado bans, are Exhibit A. Generalities can always sound good, but I'd like to know specifics.

 

[pezo]

Crickets chirping....

 

[barnbwt]

yeesh, are we still doin' this?

Oh, and what's HB4774 doing these days?

TCB

 

[DT Guy]

Same thing Pizzapinochle did; come by, spit out a few flawed 'facts' grabbed from a Bloomberg primer and then disappear when the actual debate starts.

For all the talk of 'dialogue', they're looking to push their agenda; when the 'dialogue' goes the other way, driven by facts and logic, they have no choice but to disappear.


Larry

 

[barnbwt]

Well, debating from a losing position is what trolls do, and neither of those guys are trolls, so...if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all (that goes for all parties on the forums )

TCB

 

[DT Guy]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, and then correcting me for (not) using the word I never used.

I will note that my statement seems to be correct re: their departures, however.

Larry

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Hmmm...does this sound familiar:

"Hammsbeer you're an adult and you have a right to own firearms and shoot at the range.
I have met some people who are rabid anti firearm and actually "criminalize" firearm owners in their mind and in the mind of others.
It seems with that type of group that if a person owns one firearm they "must be a bad person."
Just do what you do. One response would be "I respect your First Amendment Rights and wouldn't you be upset if there was a drive to repeal the First Amendment. Thus respect my Second Amendment rights as well." Place another right they cherish on their laps and ask them if they would be willing to give it up."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9325013#post9325013


So, riddle me this my friend: What made you do a 180 on your previous espoused stance with respect to the Second Amendment?