OH NO. This is not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
because when you hear hoof beats you should think horse before you think zebra...
 
The shootings themselves are not put-up jobs. That's crazy thinking.

The coverage, however, is a put-up job. That's PR, plain and simple.

Lots of multiple shootings do NOT make prime time broadcast news. We had one recently. But it served no great purpose for anyone at the time to give it widespread coverage, and the facts were not particularly helpful to the antis. So it received no national coverage.
 
I can't wait for the day when every murder or crime is committed by loving non-assault weapons... the kind of weapons who truly understand violent crime is secondary to their primary purpose; namely, to spread peace and love abroad.

Maybe after assault weapons are banned, our elected leaders can start concentrating on other things, like, er... assault and murder.
 
Maybe after assault weapons are banned, our elected leaders can start concentrating on other things, like, er... assault and murder.
Click to expand...

Nope, they'll just move down the line and ban the next type of firearm.
 
Knee jerk reaction, I do expect better from a chief.
Click to expand...

Why? The "Police Chief's Assoc." is ALWAYS named as supporting whatever hair brained ban the Brady people dream up.

These asshats think only cops should be armed.
 
Duke of Doubt said:
The shootings themselves are not put-up jobs. That's crazy thinking.

The coverage, however, is a put-up job. That's PR, plain and simple.

Lots of multiple shootings do NOT make prime time broadcast news. We had one recently. But it served no great purpose for anyone at the time to give it widespread coverage, and the facts were not particularly helpful to the antis. So it received no national coverage.
Click to expand...


I agree. Shootings of this scale happen all the time, just like car wrecks, electrocutions, falls, stabbings, assaults, etc. The only difference is that in this case the national media has latched onto it and is making it seem like a dangerous situation caused by "assault weapons".

Heck, here in Colorado we average 5 lightning deaths and 5 avalanche deaths per year. In life, people live, and people die. In a country of 300,000,000 people, odds are that you are going to be able to find a way to make anything look dangerous just based on the "death toll". I hope that doesn't sound to callous, but there is some truth to the idea!
 
If they put half the effort they put into gun bans into catching and keeping violent criminals off the street crime would be way down. Most if not all these shootings are probably gang related. I would like to think that the politicians are simply naive but don't they realize that if they ban guns it would create the same situation as the "war on drugs" namely a vast underground of arms and ammunition coming in across the borders and manufacturing their own in shops and garages everywhere.
 
If they put half the effort they put into gun bans into catching and keeping violent criminals off the street crime would be way down. Most if not all these shootings are probably gang related. I would like to think that the politicians are simply naive but don't they realize that if they ban guns it would create the same situation as the "war on drugs" namely a vast underground of arms and ammunition coming in across the borders and manufacturing their own in shops and garages everywhere.
Click to expand...

No, the gun bans that politicians are trying to enact are TOTALLY unconnected with crime. They just use crime as an excuse (a rather poor one) for why the gun bans need to happen. The politicians don't really think that banning guns will cut down on "inner city" crime or any other crime. They just use crime as their justification for their gun bans.

The real reason they are trying to ban guns is because an armed population makes them sick. They're not trying to ban guns out of a fear of "inner city" savages. They know full well that these savages are never going to stop doing what they're doing no matter what laws are passed - they're trying to ban guns out of a fear of US. They are scared to death of US. Normal, intelligent, organized people, all armed and trained. THAT is what bugs the hell out of them and THAT is what motivates their anti-gun schemes.
 
This wasn't really worthy of a new thread, so I thought I'd stick it in here (while we're all still hot and bothered about our rights):

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=108491&catid=188

Sheriff Alderden said:
The Sheriff's Office received 248 concealed-carry permits in 2006, 467 in 2007, and 1,025 in 2008.

Despite the increase in applications, there has been no considerable hike in permit denials in the last three years.

"You've got to realize that what we're doing is issuing permits to law-abiding citizens," Sheriff Jim Alderden said. "More law-abiding citizens owning guns enhances public safety, it doesn't denigrate it."
Click to expand...

I used to live up in that county, and I'm glad to see the sheriff is on our side!
 
said it right ArmedBear,


its not the gun that kills, its the one using it.
 
Sooooo... when gun control isn't currently being considered the media ignores mass shootings?

OK.
 
How arse backward can you get..?

A few years ago the late Neal Knox chronicled how often high-profile criminal shootings immediately preceded Congressional debates on gun control. This was especially true with regards to debates involve so-called "assault weapons." I am not big on conspiracy theories but it was striking how it seemed like every time Congress started mumbling about banning "assault weapons" some nut would start shooting up the place with a gun that would be considered in that category.

Read what you wrote.

An incident happens THEN politicians talk mumble about it, not the other way round.

The paranoia level is getting worrying, these are the same sort of comments that said "Oh no, CCW in the parks is going to be killed, THEY are stopping all 11th hour pending legislation......WE'RE DOOMED".

Guess what even the NRA agrees thats BS.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4331

Friday, January 23, 2009


NRA-ILA has received many recent inquiries regarding the new Obama administration's order to all federal agencies and departments to halt all pending regulations until incoming administration staff can review those regulations. In particular, members are concerned about the order's impact on the new rule governing the concealed carrying of firearms in national parks.

In a statement issued only hours after Obama took office, the White House said, "This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration." (You can view a copy of the memo on-line at http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/emanuel-regulatory-review.pdf).

The tactic of halting pending orders is commonly used by incoming administrations to delay so-called "midnight regulations" enacted by the outgoing president during the time period between the election and Inauguration Day.

While it is common for an incoming administration to make such an order, it does not appear that this action would affect the new parks rule.

The orders outlined in Emanuel's memo would suspend or delay three kinds of rules:

1. Proposed and final regulations that have not yet been submitted for publication in the Federal Register;

2. Proposed and final regulations that have submitted, but have not yet been published; and,

3. Final rules that have been published, but have not yet taken effect.

The new parks rule does not fall into any of these categories. The rule was published in December 2008, and took effect on January 9, 2009. To repeal the rule, the new leadership at the Interior Dept. would have to publish a new proposed rule, take public comment on it, and eventually publish a new final rule.

That action is certainly not out of the question--in fact it would come as no surprise if the anti-gun Obama administration attempts to repeal the rule. Of course, NRA-ILA would strenuously oppose and fight against any such attempt.
We will continue to closely monitor the situation and report on any developments as they happen.
 
I totally agree with Armed Bear. I would like to add Amerika took prayer out of our public schools, legalized abortion, took discilpline out of school, gay marriages etc. etc.

What else would one expect? Face up ya'll, Amerika is falling fast. I'm 57 years old and if someone would have told me when I was a young adult that America would be in this bad shape I would have told them no way. Too many liberals. Way too many sheep for sure. Do I have the solution? No, but God does and it's not going to be pretty. I think he's had enough.
 
well, it is a good thing that law abiding citizens don't carry their ak47s in the streets, right? So there would be no reason to fear law abiding citizens with ak47s.

why can't we just ban people with intent to do harm?


plus one to the above as well.
 
The police chief is right, they don't belong in the street. So maybe he should do his d*m*ed job and get the guy that brought it there. This is just another example of the lib-**** media stirring up the rest of the lib-***** and know-nots.
 
I hate to say it but one day firearms will be restricted , outpriced to the point where not many normal folks can own one , then the polits will see just how safe the streets are , most countries that have strict gun controls have high violent crime rates .
That is the time where every ex shooter has to march on the white house and say NOW give me my rights back !
 
I'm darned if I can understand why some believe an AK does not belong "on the street."

In my state and in at least three others, I may lawfully carry a sidefolder AK (20 round mags preferable) under my topcoat, worn one-point over the shoulder, muzzle down.

Hey, if the rest of you want to carry mouse guns to the main event ...
 
That's not really what I meant...when I think of "on the street" as it is phrased that way, I specifically think of either being used by street gangs, or being traded on the black market (as in the "street name" of a drug or some other thing.) And the same way that rappers and other such individuals claim to be "from the street" or whatever.

That's the usage of the term I associate with what the mayor said about taking the weapons "off the street." I wouldn't have any problem with YOU carrying an AK under your coat on the street, though I can't imagine it would be very comfortable.
 
Well, if we hitch our wagon to issues like anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage and religion in schools, we are going to alienate a HELL of a lot of people. Especially the young generation of libertarians - who are really our best hope for preserving this movement, since there is really no more citizen-soldier class anymore like there was when there was a military draft, and fewer and fewer people grow up in rural areas hunting and shooting. So we need our allies where we can get them and associating issues which are essentially about telling other people what they can and cannot do (homosexuality, abortion, religion) with our general platform of gun rights is a horrible idea.

Vote Republican if YOU want to, and urge other shooters to vote Republican just on the basis of gun issues alone if you think that they'll be receptive to that idea. Do not try to impose the Republican position on gay marriage, abortion and religion on the twentysomething libertarian computer programmer/engineer demographic - they will tell you to **** off.
 
I'm not saying try and alienate those people, but he was complaining about what's causing the crime in the first place. Saying he shouldn't do that is getting a little ridiculous.

I agree we should get them to be pro-gun, but honestly, if they're still going to vote anti-gun, it doesn't matter. You have to convince them to vote pro-gun. Parties that have gun control in their platform are not going to change that unless they start losing elections, big time.


which are essentially about telling other people what they can and cannot do (homosexuality, abortion, religion)
Click to expand...
Well, I guess we shouldn't tell people they can't own slaves either.

Hasn't this issue been discussed a hundred times in other threads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Miami to give officers assault weapons
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
RustyShackelford
R
W
  • Locked
Miami Pol and Police Chief call for AWB Renewal
Replies
21
Views
956
Mike_in_OC
M
L
  • Locked
ABC "news report" on the new firearms escalation between local PD's and criminals
Replies
17
Views
2K
kludge
K
S
  • Locked
Cops find themselves in arms race with criminals
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
Gunblade
G
F
  • Locked
Orlando Slantenal at it again
Replies
12
Views
850
AllAmerican
A
Back
Top