sportsmen for clark: you will not believe this

[tfurey19]

Just thought you would like to know what appears to be an effort to show grassroots appeal for Mr. Clark by gun owners. There is a new Yahoo e-group titled sportsmenforclark. If you have a moment please join this e-group and let the creator know what you think. I wrote him an e-mail with the basic jist being "please help me understand why gun owners do stupid things." Of course my letter was professional and saught only to gain knowledge and not to insult. His reply leads me to believe that this is being run by the antis. Please note the language as you read this. Prepare yourselves.

"Geez,
Your diatribe to me is typical of the rhetoric I've heard from the gun
lobby ever since just prior to the 1994 election. I saved some of that material and it's some of the worst, lying, fear-mongering rhetoric I've ever heard from anyone on any subject. First of all, there is no movement to take away everyone's guns. For your organizations and motivations, it would be convenient for you if this assertion by the NRA and other similar organizations were true, but
it is not. that makes those making that assertion nothing more than
fearmongering liars. I own several shotguns and my Dad will be bequeathing to me a
rifle and some old muzzleloaders. My son is an avid sportsman (fishing, deer and
turkey hunting) and one of the most outrageous political lying I ever saw was
Field and Stream's David Petzal's column about the 2000 election. He opined
that sportsmen better take a long hard look at that shotgun in their closet
because if Gore won, then that shotgun (and all the hunting we enjoy) could very
well be gone. I started hunting in the mid-50s and today's hunting and
shooting sports have never been more popular, with hunters and shooters now more
encouraged and supported by the sportsmen - catering industry than I have ever
seen in my lifetime.(Cabela's, Bass Pro Shop, etc.) I have received phone calls
from Tom DeLay's fundraising arm purporting to be the spokesmen for "Gun Owners
of America" and his pre-recorded voice asked for a donation to help him "stop
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Janet Reno from taking away your guns". That
enraged me too. Now your false, misleading, and insulting e-mail has also ticked me
off. Well, I've seen enough lying, fear mongering, false statements, and
twisted logic from you and others like you to work my butt off to see that someone
with common sense like General Clark gets elected. I'm tired of seeing your
message that my guns are in danger of being taken away when they are not. I
have studied the issue thoroughly and fully intend to keep supporting Democrats
for office and also to enjoy hunting with my Browning 12 gauge. Too bad for you
that hunters and sportsmen are starting to see through the gun lobby's
propaganda.
Go Clark! Go Dean! Go Gephardt! Go Edwards! Go Kerry!"
......

Note the constant use of "hunters and sportsmen." Note that there is no allusion to the use of firearms for self defense and there is no reference to the second amendment. Does this sound like a gun owner to you? Note that he also says "First of all, there is no movement to take away everyone's guns." So just the guns of the everyday joe.

People this is a real grassroots attempt to promote dems as pro-gun. Please join the e-group and make your voices heard.

 

[deanf]

link

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sportsmenforclark/

they've also got this: http://sportsmenforclark.com/

 

[Andrew Rothman]

My comments to the group:

(Remember, I am trying to persuade. Never mind the early buttering-up.)

-------------------------------------------
General Clark is a fine and honorable man. And anyone would be an improvement over President Bush.

Nonetheless, EVERY gun owner should be horrified by General Clark's views on gun control.

He supports renewing the "Assault Weapon Ban."

He knows better. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capability -- the ability to fire either one or multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.

Think that the AW ban is about machine guns? Wrong. They were pretty much banned by a different law in 1934.

So what is an Assault Weapon? Nothing really, it's a made-up term.

So what does the law ban? Rifles with removable magazines and two of a list of certain cosmetic features, such as flash hiders, pistol grips or bayonet mounts.

See a lot of drive-by bayoneting in the news?

You won't. In fact, you won't see "assault weapons" in the news much. Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.

So why the ban?

A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out be be , as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

(Some info from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html)

 

[Russ]

Just a bunch of anti baloney. They will no doubt tell you they are for "common sense gun safety" whatever that means. I know what it means in California where the Democrats are in control. It's a major pain to buy a gun there and getting worse all in the guise of "common sense gun safety". What a bunch of BS the Democrats spew when they are in control. Best not to vote for any of them so they never get control again.

 

[deanf]

The moderator there is now deleting posts which question their position. How nice.

I created a poll over there that you who are members may want to vote in.

Also, just got this from the moderator via email:

It is not acceptable to call Wesley Clark an idiot.

It is not acceptable to make statements as if they were facts
when describing something General Clark believes in, or is
supposed to have said without Wesley Clark actually having said
what you are refuting, supporting or commenting on. That's
called baiting. It's manipulative and deceitful.

This board is meant for dialog. If you want dilaogue, behave in a
civil manner. It would be a shame if vaild or important points had
to be deleted based on the attitude or agenda of the poster.

Have a Happy Holiday!

Thanks!

Moderator

 

[El Tejon]

But how is that wrong? Wesley Clark is an idiot.

 

[fallingblock]

Take care, El Tejon......

The rest of the nation has yet to understand the mysteries of Hoosier character divination .

 

[tfurey19]

Deleting them or not

Thank you to all those that took the time to say something. Honestly I don't think they can delete them. The webgroup sends e-mails to its members. Now I am assuming that the archive can be deleted but all those who are on the list got your messages.

 

[Standing Wolf]

First of all, there is no movement to take away everyone's guns.

Right, and and pigs fly, and chickens have lips, and the sun's going to rise in the west bright and early tomorrow morning.

Leftists are persistent liars, but not very good at it.

 

[tfurey19]

Here's the next response I got from this guy

"<< I refuse to believe that any person that served in the armed forces would
be unable to understand the implications of this bill if it were to pass. >>

You "refuse to believe" whatever you don't want to believe. You embrace and
"believe" what you do want to believe. Your words are based on your "beliefs"
that the 2nd amendment being in the constitution isn't enough. You want
legislation passed that embraces it and extols it to the level something like the
dead sea scrolls or the Magna Carta or the 10 commandments. Your one-issue
comrades embrace and believe fervently in the passage "the right to keep and bear
arms", but never mention the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated militia" and
how the two might be connected. Here's the deal that would satisfy you - a
rewording of the 2nd amendment........ Every household shall be required to have
a gun located inside as every individual in the United States has a right to
obtain ANY type of weapon he so desires. There shall be no restriction
whatsoever on the caliber, firepower, or range. Also, there can be no government -
imposed safety restrictions such as safeties, locks, etc. All gun manufacturers
therefore should quickly increase production and deadliness of their product.
Also, no lawsuits by victims of these weapons can be instigated against any gun
manufacturer. No lawsuits can be instigated against any owners of these
weapons.

I sincerely wish you good luck in getting your message out that there aren't
enough guns in the U.S. and that assault weapons are too restricted. Also, go
for repealing any laws that restrict the use of genuine automatic fire
weapons. That ought to go over well.

Also, please disassociate yourself from Sportsmen for Clark and start your
own group called "one-issue gun nuts for Bush/Çheney"
Tom Boyd
U.S. Navy pilot, 1967-1972

Goodbye "


What bothers me is that this guy may actually be a gun owner (although he uses the same diction as the antis do)

 

[Bill Hook]

I believe it. Many shotgunners think that it's okay to own a shotgun or even a hunting rifle, but other guns are bad because you can't hunt with them. To be honest, though, Clark really doesn't seem like he can beat Dean. .

 

[Leatherneck]

MPayne

General Clark is a fine and honorable man.

That, apparently, is not clear to the Chairman of the JCS.

And anyone would be an improvement over President Bush.

Debatable, but I feel your pain.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[buzz_knox]

General Clark is a fine and honorable man.

Who was known as the "prince of darkness" to those unfortunate enough to be under his command, who was removed from his command due to an issue of "personal integrity" and who one of his fellow generals (and close associates) has publicly said has such a character that the general would never vote for him.

Outside of that, I'm sure he's a great guy.

 

[seeker_two]

And anyone would be an improvement over President Bush.

No. None of the TEN Democratic candidates (Hillary included) would be an improvement. But there are a LOT of candidates not running now who would be...

Well, I've seen enough lying, fear mongering, false statements, and
twisted logic from you and others like you to work my butt off to see that someone
with common sense like General Clark gets elected. I'm tired of seeing your
message that my guns are in danger of being taken away when they are not. I
have studied the issue thoroughly and fully intend to keep supporting Democrats
for office and also to enjoy hunting with my Browning 12 gauge. Too bad for you
that hunters and sportsmen are starting to see through the gun lobby's
propaganda.

You know, there's medication for delusions like that...

 

[Andrew Rothman]

This is great:

I joined the group yesterday, and wrote the very calm, respectful and well-reasoned message above.

Today I am no longer a member of the group, and now you need to "apply" for membership, which is reviewed by the moderator.

Mustn't have differing opinions!




P.S. Hey, guys (seeker_2, buzz_knox, Leatherneck) -- use your eyes. I specifically stated

Remember, I am trying to persuade. Never mind the early buttering-up.

 

[Bill Hook]

· Listed in directory
· Restricted membership
· All messages require approval
· All members may post
· Archives for members only
· Email attachments are not permitted






How leftist.

With a mere 29 members, who gives a flip about this group?

 

[Quartus]

WEll, too late.


If you guys wanted to argue with these idiots, why not just quote the many statements of antis that are available on the web? Quote them (and cite them) telling what their plans are - total gun confiscation?

Why waste time just making assertions?

 

[TarpleyG]

[glazedeyed]This is like trying to talk to the antis. Haven't you all figured that out yet?[/glazedeyed]

 

[dischord]

I own several shotguns and my Dad will be bequeathing to me a
rifle and some old muzzleloaders ... I'm tired of seeing your
message that my guns are in danger of being taken away when they are not.

Is this parody?

 

[bountyhunter]

General Clark is a fine and honorable man. And anyone would be an improvement over President Bush.

I agree with the conclusion, but not sure about the first part. Clark left a nasty "paper trail" in his disposition of the Kosovo affair and he apparrently was not at all concerned that Slobidan "the Butcher of the balkans" Milosivic was running loose and slaughtering people. If Clark was nominated, all the dirty laundry would get aired.

Watching the demos self destruct is almost like watching a train wreck. Lieberman is an OK guy, but he looks like Orville Reddenbacher. People will not elect a president who doesn't look like a president. Kerry is another pretty good guy and a veteran, but his head looks like a claw hammer. I mean, seriously. Every time I see the guy, all I can focus on is what happened to your head? Dean is the closest thing to a candidate, but he has the personal warmth of a diamondback rattler and a bad habit of sticking his foot in his mouth.

Worst of all, the dems are doing their usual which is slinging crap all over each other and then at the last minute they will say to voters: "Forget all that bad stuff we said about each other... XXX is a great guy!"

It's a shame they are such buffoons. If they just set up one decent candidate who would point out the obvious:

"Hey, folks.... remember Bush said he had proof of WMD's and proof Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that's why we had to spend $200 Billion and all those US lives to get him? Well, Bush lied..... you want to re-elect a liar?"

Keep the message simple.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Yo, bountyhunter! Woo-hoo! Over here:

Remember, I am trying to persuade. Never mind the early buttering-up.

Get it? Get it?

Fer gosh sakes people, R-E-A-D!

 

[Sam Adams]

Here's what I said on a different thread in response to something Sarah Brady said. Specifically, Sarah said:

...and assault-style weapons, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose. There may be a few Americans who actually use such guns in hunting. In my view, those people have moral issues of their own they need to address, and they most certainly do not deserve to be called "sportsmen."

Listen, Sarah, and listen GOOD: the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was proposed 13 years after Independence Day and 14 years after the battles at Lexington and Concord (which, FYI, started because the British military governor of Boston - yes, THAT Boston - decided to send troops outside of the city to seize weapons from the People). It was ratified only 2 years later. Those who proposed and ratified it not only partook in the Revolutionary War, they were its intellectual, moral, financial and military leaders. Their heads ALL had prices on them because, you see, the King of England didn't look too kindly on a rebellion by the revolting colonists. So he, the leader of the then-sole superpower of the world, sent many tens of thousands of the world's best soldiers over here, supported by the world's then-greatest naval force. Poor Georgie (the George who, Ann Richards notwithstanding, was REALLY born with a silver spoon in his mouth) and his arrogant aristocratic officers lost that war, due in no small degree to the fact that the average colonist had firearms and that many of those weapons were used with stunningly good effect to kill or maim lots of His Majesty's Redcoats (and not a few of the aristocratic officers).

So, Sarah, here's the point: why in the world would men who literally gambled (in their words) "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" to free their nation, and who won that gamble in no small part because the citizenry was armed with weapons as good, if not better than, those of the British Army, and who were designing the structure of the government of this nation - why would these very serious men, who were doing among the most serious things in their lives, put a provision into the most basic document of the Republic which they had just created at terrible cost to protect something so inane, so trivial, as the ability of some inbred, beer-swilling, gap-toothed Arkansas redneck (to borrow the stereotypical imagery that your side of this debate likes to use so often to denigrate law-abiding citizens) to shoot ducks or deer 200+ years in the future? There is no logical reason for this; in fact, the only logical conclusion that can be reached about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (esp. in view of such wonderfully clear tracts on the relationship of the newly-created government to the People as Federalist #46, written by James Madison himself) is that it is a doomsday provision - a "break glass in case of tyranny" provision - that protects the TOOLS of revolution in the hands of the People in the awful event that the Constitution that this unparalleled collection of political geniuses had just created would someday fail (you may wish to read the bottom quote in my tagline to see what a very eloquent Circuit Court judge said about the 2nd Amendment).

As such, Sarah you ignorant slut, I am proud to state: I'M NO SPORTSMAN!
_____________________________________________

As for Clark and the 29 "sportsmen" that are for him, I say: I'M NO SPORTSMAN, AND IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE AN EXAMPLE OF "SPORTMEN," I'M DAMNED GLAD OF IT!!!

 

[Mark Tyson]

My feelings towards these knuckleheads are unprintable! Fools and their guns are soon parted.

Think your shotgun will be safe after they classify it as a "street sweeper"? Think you'll get to keep your hunting rifle when the next Muhammed/Malvo team uses a Remington 700? THINK for a minute you morons! They're taking our guns one by one, divide and conquer. But you're willing to sell the rest of us out because you think it can't happen to you.

The only fear mongering here is being done by antis in their quest to destroy our rights. The "paranoia" of the NRA and others has been proven tragically correct. With every infringement the government is not satisfied - it always wants just one more step, just one more infringement, just a little more regulation. Look at the AWB - now they want to ban MILLIONS of more guns. The "paranoid" gun owners were right!

That's right, just cut us loose. After all, you've got nothing to lose. They don't want your guns - just those nasty black guns, and the handguns, and the military style guns, and the accurate guns, and the effective guns, and ...

When will they wake up? Do they even care?

 

[buzz_knox]

Bird guns and deer rifles are only one sound bite away from being riot guns and sniper rifles, respectively.

 

[tfurey19]

My last reply to one of the founding members

"I was disappointed to learn today that you are now kicking out members that question Mr. Clark and require approval to gain entrance to the group.

This type of sensorship is disturbing especially since all the questions posed to Clark supporters about his position have gone unanswered. However you are free to do whatever you like with your board. It is not like members of the pro-gun community to shy away from intellectual debate. I honestly have never seen such behavior on any other boards before.

I would however like to invite you to the web board that I am a part of

nyc-rkba@yahoogroups

you and all the members of this board are welcome to join and I believe membership is wel over 100 now. I think it will give you a good insight into what gun ownership is like under democratic rule.

The pro-gun community would like to continue the dialogue with your group.

Unless otherwise contacted I will not contact you or your board again. Honestly Clark will not receive the Democratic nomination anyway and will fade into obscurity soon thereafter. Our resources are better spent in Ohio, Wisconsin and Kansas where the fight for concealed carry is at its hottest.

Best wishes"


Thanks to all that jumped in and helped me with this one. The posts that I read before we were all kicked out were well written. I have not yet seen a single retort to any of your remarks, nor would I expect any. Nice work guys and gals!

It just really bothers me that there are gun owners out there that are still so out of the loop that they believe these things.