This is what we're up against
- Thread starter dmancornell
- Start date
- Status
Notice in the original poster,the Bloomers are trying to link "GUN VIOLENCE" and "Safety." This is THE LIE. They have millions of $ to keep telling it. I'm sure the NRA would love to work with any group to promote responsible gun ownership. This isn't about safety,it's about confiscation.
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
Most of my firearms are defective ... the brass either stays in the firearm or flys out the top or side ... but NEVER fly out the front of the barrel!
WTH????
WTH????Pushing this lie is one pile of BS but this worries me even more.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/34887381...nk-regulations/#sp=show-clips&v=3488738130001
The specific point runs from about 3:00 - 3:50 where they discuss credit card data, this is actually a defact registration if the gov't maintains details on credit and debit card purchases.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/34887381...nk-regulations/#sp=show-clips&v=3488738130001
The specific point runs from about 3:00 - 3:50 where they discuss credit card data, this is actually a defact registration if the gov't maintains details on credit and debit card purchases.
jagdpanzer347
Member
I didn't read the whole thread, but wasn't there an error like that in the film "Sniper"?
In Sniper the special effects were trying to show an air ripple behind the round. The first few times I watched it I thought it looked like a long pen.
Baldman there are multiple advertising/market research companies that will provide a list of gun owners to anyone that pays them. There is no way around that one any more as the privacy laws that would be required to stop it would decimate the industries (and therefore not happen).
So a fairly accurate list of gun owners is available. What registration and UBCs do goes beyond that. UBCs create an accurate list of all the guns linked to their owners making it easier to "get all of them." Not even going to that point, think of the NY laws where if you have a gun not listed on your permit there is trouble. UBCs allow that nationwide without the permit part; How did you get this gun, it was last registered to Jim over in Mayberry.
So a fairly accurate list of gun owners is available. What registration and UBCs do goes beyond that. UBCs create an accurate list of all the guns linked to their owners making it easier to "get all of them." Not even going to that point, think of the NY laws where if you have a gun not listed on your permit there is trouble. UBCs allow that nationwide without the permit part; How did you get this gun, it was last registered to Jim over in Mayberry.
Yes lets turn this into a womens rights issue. We could always get Hillary Clinton, Bella Azbug, Gloria Steinem to head the NRAAre you saying that accuracy in the ad doesn't matter because they're targeting women?
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,232
In my experience they do not care if they are wrong. But that won't stop them into browbeating anyone they disagree with into thinking like them. We have to stop the campaign of using numbers and logic to prove them wrong, the liberals at the top are too set in their ways to change. Get to those on the fence, the ones that vote.
Cump
Member
it's like their psa with the little girl playing hide and seek. she finds a beretta in a shoe box. it's implied it is unloaded because she must insert the magazine. cocks it pretty easily and fires it off, without seeming to chamber a round.
NavyLCDR
member
And then there is this one:
Now wait a minute:
More people die every year by vehicles driven by people who are breaking the law (dui, texting, speeding, etc.) than who are shot with guns by people using them illegally.
Even though speed is one of the leading contributors to people dying in vehicle crashes there is no attempt to place governors on vehicles to physically limit their speed to what politicians would consider safe. But we have to limit magazine capacities.
To buy a gun from a dealer, I have to pass a background check. No background check is required to buy a vehicle.
I can only buy a shotgun or rifle in a state other than my residence from a licensed dealer, and I cannot buy and receive a handgun from anyone outside my state of residence. But I can buy a car in any state from anyone selling it.
If I want to be a dealer in firearms, I have to have a Federal license (in addition to the local business licenses) - I don't need a Federal license to be a car dealer.
I can't sell a gun to a person whom I know or have reason to believe is a felon, but there is no law against selling a car to someone who is staggering drunk so long as they come back later when they are sober to drive it away. And I can sell a car to someone whom I know has 10 dui's.
In some states a license is required just to possess a gun - but in no state is a license required to possess a car - only to drive it on public roads.
In Washington, it is illegal to just pull out a gun and shoot it for the heck of it in a bar - but that isn't enough - it has to be illegal to even possess the gun in a bar. Yet, I can legally park my car in the bar parking lot, walk in and get staggering drunk with the keys in my pocket.
So.... where is the outcry against vehicle violence? Where is the screaming for closing the "vehicle sales" loopholes?
Now wait a minute:
More people die every year by vehicles driven by people who are breaking the law (dui, texting, speeding, etc.) than who are shot with guns by people using them illegally.
Even though speed is one of the leading contributors to people dying in vehicle crashes there is no attempt to place governors on vehicles to physically limit their speed to what politicians would consider safe. But we have to limit magazine capacities.
To buy a gun from a dealer, I have to pass a background check. No background check is required to buy a vehicle.
I can only buy a shotgun or rifle in a state other than my residence from a licensed dealer, and I cannot buy and receive a handgun from anyone outside my state of residence. But I can buy a car in any state from anyone selling it.
If I want to be a dealer in firearms, I have to have a Federal license (in addition to the local business licenses) - I don't need a Federal license to be a car dealer.
I can't sell a gun to a person whom I know or have reason to believe is a felon, but there is no law against selling a car to someone who is staggering drunk so long as they come back later when they are sober to drive it away. And I can sell a car to someone whom I know has 10 dui's.
In some states a license is required just to possess a gun - but in no state is a license required to possess a car - only to drive it on public roads.
In Washington, it is illegal to just pull out a gun and shoot it for the heck of it in a bar - but that isn't enough - it has to be illegal to even possess the gun in a bar. Yet, I can legally park my car in the bar parking lot, walk in and get staggering drunk with the keys in my pocket.
So.... where is the outcry against vehicle violence? Where is the screaming for closing the "vehicle sales" loopholes?
Last edited:
NavyLCDR
member
Wait a second now.... why not just do away with all the screening at airports and just pass a law that makes it illegal to possess a shoe bomb and post a sign on the aircraft door that shoe bombs are prohibited? Isn't that the solution you want for Sandy Hook?
NavyLCDR
member
Ummm..... when did it become legal to hunt humans?
dmancornell
Member
The government has been doing it for so long, Feinstein forgot it's illegal for the rest of us.
Cump
Member
another thing i hate about the car analogy: they want similar regulations, but don't want to allow similar use/access. they want us registered, with guns rarely used (at restrictive sites), never carried and kept at home, locked up and unloaded. if the analogy works, all our cars would be locked in garages, without fuel. We'd have to ship them in safe containers to test tracks to drive, and I guess ride bikes everywhere else.
Theohazard
Member
I think the two biggest differences between gun regulations and car regulations are these: One, the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, but there's no mention of cars or even transportation in general. And two, nobody is trying to vilify and ban cars: States aren't using car laws to make it harder to own a car or to set the stage for more restrictive anti-car regulations on the future.
If I could somehow have a guarantee that guns would be regulated just like cars and no more, and at the same time they'd be as accepted in popular culture as much as cars are, I'd be fine with that. But we all know that's not the overall goal of the anti-gun folks. Laws like the "Assault Weapons" ban make it clear that an overall ban is their true goal.
If I could somehow have a guarantee that guns would be regulated just like cars and no more, and at the same time they'd be as accepted in popular culture as much as cars are, I'd be fine with that. But we all know that's not the overall goal of the anti-gun folks. Laws like the "Assault Weapons" ban make it clear that an overall ban is their true goal.
Cump
Member
Theo,
I agree. When the analogy is brought up, I'm just tempted to push its limits, in its own terms: "Okay, so you're happy with me carrying publically, just like i drive publically." Obviously, they don't feel that way.
If they were more accurate/honest with their analogy, they would compare driving regs with (concealed) carry regs, which are already legislated ...
But then, Everytown's rhetoric is about emotional manipulation, covered by a logical facade.
I agree. When the analogy is brought up, I'm just tempted to push its limits, in its own terms: "Okay, so you're happy with me carrying publically, just like i drive publically." Obviously, they don't feel that way.
If they were more accurate/honest with their analogy, they would compare driving regs with (concealed) carry regs, which are already legislated ...
But then, Everytown's rhetoric is about emotional manipulation, covered by a logical facade.
Theohazard
Member
Since I posted that first link, it's now been verified that the photo in the OP was a parody:
http://bearingarms.com/the-last-word-on-everytown-cartridge-fail/
But that just makes it even better to me. I especially like the Tweeted response in that link about making cyber-squatting illegal.
http://bearingarms.com/the-last-word-on-everytown-cartridge-fail/
But that just makes it even better to me. I especially like the Tweeted response in that link about making cyber-squatting illegal.
^^Exactly. They don't care about logic or factual correctness. It doesn't matter to them.
As far as using the 'car analogy', I don't think that's really a very good analogy. Even though this may be brought up in other non-firearm related forums, the same types of arguments could be made for the registration of vehicles on the opposite side of the spectrum: 'Why do vehicles need to be registered and inspected?' It's mostly about revenue, I would imagine.
Cars were not specifically guaranteed in the constitution, but that's kind of like saying that computers and microwaves were not guaranteed in the constitution, so let's register and inspect those as well. I would imagine that being able to cook food the way you want, and travel freely (9th amendment maybe?) would also be considered natural rights, just like using an AR-15 or a 40 watt range phase plasma rifle to maintain our 2A rights are.
I don't think horses were guaranteed in the constitution either
Last night I watched the movie RED 2 (I actually fell asleep during it) and they made the same mistake, but only worse. They showed the entire round leaving the barrel and at the same time the casing being ejected from the gun. I guess things went from caseless ammo to double cased ammo.
put every teaparty poster beside it
and behold the similarity.
Here it`s Antigunners blabla-ing vs guns.
There it`s the less educated blabla-ing about
global economic stuff they simplify to a point
they call it some kind of -ism.
It boils down to: Most people who put up signs
in anger are often unlucky when it comes to thinking.
and behold the similarity.
Here it`s Antigunners blabla-ing vs guns.
There it`s the less educated blabla-ing about
global economic stuff they simplify to a point
they call it some kind of -ism.
It boils down to: Most people who put up signs
in anger are often unlucky when it comes to thinking.
Exactly what they're doing.
My point was that it's not wise to suggest the campaigns are targeting women and it's all about getting an "emotional response".
That sort of approach risks pissing off up to 50% of the electorate right off the bat, which isn't a great strategy for success.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,232
I understand the car analogy, I just do not agree with it. It is hard to relate firearms to anything else in our society, because the right to own something while still being semi-regulated. There is nothing else tangible, mentioned or implied, in the Constitution that can be compared to firearm ownership. It is a fine line we walk and antis pole vault over.
P5 Guy
Member
People cannot peaceably assemble if they cannot TRAVEL to the assembly place from their homes.
Am I stretching or does the First guaranty the right to travel without stating how one is to reach the assembly place?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
