warpedskydiver 0 #1 November 8, 2006 Yesterday as I voted there was a referendum that read as follows: In the interest of the safety of our children and our neighborhoods would you be willing to have an assault weapons ban on all military style weapons and rifles that are .50cal? IMHO that is the most disgusting and dishonest way to pose a question to the voters in a LONG time. How the fuck can they get aways with stating things this way without ANY proof that the AWB stopeed any criminals at all? the FEDS could not make it work and spent billions and now the State of Illinois wants to do the very same thing. Just like the assholes that run this state to piss away all that money for no results and to ignore the real criminals instead. Passing laws is easy espeacially if you lie about the intent, implementing them and enforcment is another issue entirely. I will GLADLY leave this state if such a law passes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 November 8, 2006 Probably doesn't matter much, now... I'm sure Chucky Schumer will make sure we don't have to worry about owning any weapons ever again...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #3 November 8, 2006 Quote and rifles that are .50cal? Is this aimed specifically at .50 BMG, or would black powder replicas in .50 also be included? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 November 8, 2006 QuoteProbably doesn't matter much, now... I'm sure Chucky Schumer will make sure we don't have to worry about owning any weapons ever again... Yeah there inlies the hypocracy, a Jew telling us all we don't need to weapons to protect ourselves. His ancectors must be so proud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuote and rifles that are .50cal? Is this aimed specifically at .50 BMG, or would black powder replicas in .50 also be included? t All .50 cal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #6 November 8, 2006 QuoteYesterday as I voted there was a referendum that read as follows: In the interest of the safety of our children and our neighborhoods would you be willing to have an assault weapons ban on all military style weapons and rifles that are .50cal? IMHO that is the most disgusting and dishonest way to pose a question to the voters in a LONG time. How the fuck can they get aways with stating things this way without ANY proof that the AWB stopeed any criminals at all? the FEDS could not make it work and spent billions and now the State of Illinois wants to do the very same thing. Just like the assholes that run this state to piss away all that money for no results and to ignore the real criminals instead. Passing laws is easy espeacially if you lie about the intent, implementing them and enforcment is another issue entirely. I will GLADLY leave this state if such a law passes.Don't get your panties in a wad. The NRA will never let it happen>Ban on .50 Cal. Defeated in California The Fifty-Caliber Shooters Ass'n worked with NRA on this one! AB 2222, a measure that would have mandated new restrictions on target rifles chambered for .50 BMG cartridges, was defeated by a vote by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 23. This bill sought to register .50 caliber BMG rifles and place them under an arbitrary permit system. A special thanks goes to all California NRA members who worked tirelessly to defeat this measure!I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #7 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteProbably doesn't matter much, now... I'm sure Chucky Schumer will make sure we don't have to worry about owning any weapons ever again... Yeah there inlies the hypocracy, a Jew telling us all we need to weapons to protect ourselves. His ancectors must be so proud. Ummm, care to explain?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #8 November 8, 2006 QuoteYesterday as I voted there was a referendum that read as follows: In the interest of the safety of our children and our neighborhoods would you be willing to have an assault weapons ban on all military style weapons and rifles that are .50cal? IMHO that is the most disgusting and dishonest way to pose a question to the voters in a LONG time. How the fuck can they get aways with stating things this way without ANY proof that the AWB stopeed any criminals at all? the FEDS could not make it work and spent billions and now the State of Illinois wants to do the very same thing. Just like the assholes that run this state to piss away all that money for no results and to ignore the real criminals instead. Passing laws is easy espeacially if you lie about the intent, implementing them and enforcment is another issue entirely. I will GLADLY leave this state if such a law passes. You can always vote "no" if you don't like the question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #9 November 8, 2006 Quote Yeah there inlies the hypocracy, a Jew telling us all we need to weapons to protect ourselves. His ancectors must be so proud. Easy there Mel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #10 November 8, 2006 I was referrring to Shumers apparent lack of memory of what happened to his own people in europe during WWII. They registered guns, had them conficated, and then went on a train ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 November 8, 2006 yep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 November 8, 2006 Did you find the question leading in any way? I believe it was crafted to illicit only a yes response Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freekflyguy 0 #13 November 8, 2006 Im sorry but this really does confound me. Why would you want to own a .05 cal weapon? I understand certain issues such as collections of weapons for their historic value, your constitutional right to bare arms and the need to kill Elephants quickly and cleanly. I just dont understand the mentality of someone wanting to own one just because he can. Having just finished a 22 year career in the British Army I am more than comfortable with weapons and other devices designed to kill, main or otherwise disable a would be aggressor. Having carried out 3 tours of Northern Ireland, tours of the Balkans and Op Desert Storm, I am all to aware of the need for personal security. Of course these operational tours were before the USA was subjected to the kind of terrorism we faced in the UK on a regular basis. I still find it ironic that the area chosen as the target on 9/11 was one of the biggest sources of fundraising for terrorism in the UK. Anyone out there honest enough to admit to contributing to "The Cause" on St Patricks Day???? But I digress and rant, sorry. Getting back to the point. I can see no reason for wanting to own any type of fire arm for personal use let alone large calibre weapons. Just because you have the right doesnt make it right, just as the right to free speach doesnt make it right for me to incite racial hatred or burn the Star Spangled banner. I love America, well Southern California as thats the only place ive been (hello all you Perris and Elsinore peeps), and to be honest I have yet to meet an American I didnt like. But boy do you guys have some attitude adjustments to make. Buzz xxxxIt's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #14 November 8, 2006 Why would you want to own a .05 cal weapon? ---------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't. WAAAAAY to smallI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #15 November 8, 2006 Quoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #16 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Evidently not...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #18 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Evidently not... Evidently you are unaware of the meaning of the word hypocrite.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #19 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Some areOne of the most vehement organizations there is when it comes to firearms ownership and the Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution is: JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP, INC. 2872 S. Wentworth Avenue Milawaukee, WI. 53207 414 769-0760 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #20 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Still, not hypocritical. To be hypocritical is to do the very same that you preach against. If this guy is preaching against .50 cals but owns one himself, that would be hypocritical. Solely being Jewish does not make him hypocritical in this issue. You should invest in a dictionary."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #21 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Still, not hypocritical. To be hypocritical is to do the very same that you preach against. If this guy is preaching against .50 cals but owns one himself, that would be hypocritical. Solely being Jewish does not make him hypocritical in this issue. You should invest in a dictionary. Schumer is said to have owned firearms and he is against all firearms. I think this is a case similar to Rosie O' Donnell She is anti gun but owns one and that is hypocritical as well. Shumer also has armed security and the rest of us do not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #22 November 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyep I made a typo and omitted the word "Don't" Fixed now Still doesn't explain how it's hypocritical. Are Jews in America notorious for their arsenals? Damn, are you not aware that Jews in Germany registered, then surrendered their firearms, prior to them being sent to the concentration/death camps? Evidently not... Evidently you are unaware of the meaning of the word hypocrite. It seems to be an epidemic among supporters of the right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #23 November 8, 2006 August 24, 1994 Gun Bans and "Schindler's List" by William R Tonso & David B. Kopel "I think that Schindler's List should be required viewing for everybody in this room." Schindler's List, of course, is the Academy Award-winning movie about the Holocaust. The speaker was crime victim Suzanna Gratia, and the setting was a U.S. House subcommittee hearing on the so-called "assault- weapon" ban. Among the people who Dr. Gratia felt should be required to view this movie were two congressmen supportive of the most restrictive gun controls: Jewish Congressman Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Black Congressman Mel Reynolds (D-Illinois). She may as well have been speaking to a couple of sign posts. Then again, maybe seeing the movie would not have helped Representative Schumer or Reynolds, since the movie omitted a critical part of the real story: the part where Schindler gives all the Jews semiautomatic rifles. According to Mr. Schindler's wife Maria, when Schindler decided to liberate his Jewish workers, he handed them all semiautomatic weapons so they could fight the Nazis. In today's politically correct Hollywood, Steven Speilberg probably would have ruined his chances for an Oscar by telling the whole story about Oskar Schindler's devotion to freedom. The notion that genocide victims such as Bosnians or Rwandans should fight back, rather than counting on the United Nations or Bill Clinton to save their lives is not heard very often on the weekly news analysis programs. Even some survivors of the Holocaust seem to think that we'll all be safer if only the government has all the force. Consider the following letter that recently appeared in Guns & Ammo magazine: "I am a survivor of the Nazi death camp Treblinka and I remember just like it was yesterday how the Nazis came and forced me out or my home and into the death camp with their automatic weapons. I managed to survive the Holocaust and came to the United States. I settled in New York and saw gun violence everywhere. Later I learned that the United States says that Americans actually have a right to own guns. I just couldn't believe it and I promised myself to do all I could to stop the violence. I am writing this letter- to every pro-gun magazine in the United States hoping that maybe just one gun owner will decide to do the right thing and turn his guns in to the authorities." We still wonder if this letter should be taken at face value. Surely any Holocaust survivor would recognize that the guns used to victimize him or her were in the hands of the authorities; the same authorities that forbade the victims to possess guns for their own defense. And yet the views expressed by the writer, Samuel Goldberg. concerning the civilian possession of guns are apparently shared by many of the most politically and culturally influential of his ethnic kin in this country - politicians such as Schumer and Senators Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California), plus a long list of other politicians, academics, and news and entertainment media personalities, But the lessons of the Holocaust weren't lost on Israel, where al law-abiding citizens are allowed to own and carry guns. Whatever else may befall Israel, the people there will never be murdered en masse by a dictatorial government. You see, in every one of the major genocides of the 20th century (Nazi, Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian, Ugandan, Guatemalan, and Armenian), the victims were first disarmed. As detailed in the new book Lethal Laws by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice, not every country with repressive gun laws has genocide. but every country with genocide has repressive gun laws. Put another way, a well-armed populace is a very effective guarantee against mass murder by the government. So in response to Mr. Goldberg's letter telling people to give the government their guns, Aaron Lippman wrote back that his Holocaust-survivor father insisted that "never again would he or his family be rounded up like sheep for the slaughter! They would have the will, the training, and the means to fight back. He taught us that to die fighting tyranny like this is preferable to what happened to our family and relatives under the Nazis." Even the scholarly and very liberal Constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson, no gun enthusiast, has acknowledged that "a state facing a tota11y disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured of killed." Likewise, not all prominent blacks are as eager as Mel Reynolds to remove from the Bill of Rights a right which was so long denied blacks. After all, not being able to possess guns was a condition of slavery that guaranteed that slaves would remain slaves, and Blacks still have to look out for themselves in many parts of this country. Long-time National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, Roy Innis, economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, are among the prominent blacks who strongly reject the notion that law-abiding Americans must be disarmed to combat high rates or black-on-black violence. It's true, of course, that a risk associated with an armed populace is that occasionally even an individual who isn't part of the thug subculture may harm innocents with his weapons. Doctor Gratia herself survived a shooting rampage by a madman in a Texas cafeteria, Her parents weren't so lucky. However, the risk associated with an unarmed populace is that it can be enslaved or annihilated by a rogue government. Throughout history. the unarmed have been safe only as long as the armed (criminals or government agents) have allowed them to be safe. And Dr. Gratia reminded Representatives Schumer and Reynolds, our right to keep and bear arms was intended mainly as a means of protection against the kind of tyranny that the Founding Fathers knew was always possible, unless human nature were miraculously changed. Of course, the idea that government should be kept under strict control, or the idea that government could one day start killing people is deeply offensive to the statist movers and shakers of the gun control movement, including the current occupants of the White House. The dangers posed by government apparently are conveniently forgotten by many who become part of it. William R. Tonso is a professor of Sociology at the University of Evansvil1e. David B. Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, a think-tank in Golden, Colorado. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #24 November 8, 2006 There is way more to the referendum than the big bad .50 Go back and read the question again. Slowly. I own weapons that would fall under the last few proposed HR bills that few would think of as "military style" or "assault rifle". Still thats not the point. QuoteI can see no reason for wanting to own any type of fire arm for personal use let alone large calibre weapons. You see no reason? None? Security? Protection? How about my dinner last night? Venison!! Yummy. Without my firearms I would be limited to the tags issued for archery. How about my dinner on Sunday? Grouse. Very hard to get with a bow and have any meat left unless you can get an optimal ground shot. How about the Wolves that are very thick about 1/2 mile from where I bow hunt? I seldom go that deep into the woods anymore without a sidearm ever since I stumbled across a Mama Bear and cubs earlier this year. Still it is the wolves that scare me if I ever were injured and struggling out in the woods. 2ND Amendment aside and the opinion that guns are just plain fun to shoot, can you honestly say you see no reason for the personal ownership of firearms? I could probably think of a hundred. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #25 November 8, 2006 As Iraq shows us, a determined freedom fighter armed with IEDs, RPGs and small arms can indeed render the most powerful military invader on Earth quite impotent. We really need to be allowed to own more explosives and RPGs to be effective in fighting a rogue government.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
