SkyDekker 1,465 #51 July 24, 2012 Quote It would be just as intelligent to say that its possible to achieve low crime in a land infested with moose. If the thread was about the WWF, but this one is about the NRA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #52 July 24, 2012 Quote'Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership' Seriously?? Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. To quote the web site http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/about.htm our goals are to Quote 1. Destroy so-called “gun control” (code words for disarming innocent people). 2. Expose the misguided notions that lead people to seek out so-called “gun control”. 3. Encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. The Second Amendment is the “Guardian” of the Bill of Rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #53 July 24, 2012 QuoteAmazing thing happened in Canada: Crime rate dropped 6% to lowest level since 1972, and the severity of crime index dropped 6%. One should keep in mind this was accomplished without handing out free guns. Although many of us are safer in America than we'd be in Canada. People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although this is incorrect. Although Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities on opposite sides of the border they have radically different demographics. At the time of the study white people on both sides of the border had similar economic circumstances and were safer in Seattle with 6.2 murders per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #54 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuote'Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership' Seriously?? Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #55 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuote Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership I wanted to buy a baseball cap from their site. But they don't sell them... Here you go: [URL]http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=103[/URL] It's even made in America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #56 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote'Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership' Seriously?? Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control. That was after the Nazis made it illegal for Jews to own firearms and confiscated many of their guns in 1938. They also leveraged local records of gun ownership to disarm victims outside Germany as they marched across Europe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #57 July 24, 2012 While technically true, the Jewish community in German in 1938, didn't exactly have a lot of guns to take away to begin with. It's not that laws or anything had prevented them from getting them, it just wasn't their thing. Any guns they might have had would have been "quaint" by today's standards or compared to the military thugs who rounded them up. They really didn't stand a chance either way. In much the same way, any individual or group of individuals who believe they'd be able to protect themselves from our own government if the government was determined are really just fooling themselves. They wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be declared domestic terrorists and would be very quickly dealt with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #58 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership' Seriously?? Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control. That was after the Nazis made it illegal for Jews to own firearms and confiscated many of their guns in 1938. They also leveraged local records of gun ownership to disarm victims outside Germany as they marched across Europe. The 1938 gun control act made it easier for Germans to own guns. Many Jews already owned guns. As you know, they did them no good at all. The miscreants came and took them anyway. They also took away their possessions, their clothes, their dignity, and their humanity. They did it legally. Gun control had little, if anything to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was NOT made possible by strict gun control laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 July 24, 2012 QuoteWhile technically true, the Jewish community in German in 1938, didn't exactly have a lot of guns to take away to begin with. It's not that laws or anything had prevented them from getting them, it just wasn't their thing. nonetheless, the members of the JPFO are determined not to be left defenseless ever again. Even futile resistance is preferable to being loaded onto trains and then into ovens. Quote In much the same way, any individual or group of individuals who believe they'd be able to protect themselves from our own government if the government was determined are really just fooling themselves. They wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be declared domestic terrorists and would be very quickly dealt with. Repeat this as many times as you life, it doesn't mesh well with recent history. The Jews are 4.5M people in this country, not an individual or a small group like the Davidians, and it tooks months before the ATF cooked them . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #60 July 24, 2012 QuoteRepeat this as many times as you life, it doesn't mesh well with recent history. The Jews are 4.5M people in this country, not an individual or a small group like the Davidians, and it tooks months before the ATF cooked them . The government didn't want to "cook" anyone and the Dividians could have surrendered and lived at any point in the prior months. The fact the Davidians died is nobody's fault by Koresh's.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteRepeat this as many times as you life, it doesn't mesh well with recent history. The Jews are 4.5M people in this country, not an individual or a small group like the Davidians, and it tooks months before the ATF cooked them . The government didn't want to "cook" anyone and the Dividians could have surrendered and lived at any point in the prior months. The fact the Davidians died is nobody's fault by Koresh's. why would they surrender? How would that be different than the Jews getting on the train for Treblinka, from their frame of reference after being attacked by ATF agents? This is an example of citizens rebelling against their government and look how long it took to subdue them. Multiply that by 1000 now. They're of course the easiest to subdue in the first place, they live in isolated "compounds." How do you handle the ones intermixed with society at large? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #62 July 24, 2012 QuoteThis is an example of citizens rebelling against their government and look how long it took to subdue them. Oh my, what an amazing fiction you appear to have bought into. They were not "rebels." They refused to speak about a weapons charge and escalated the situation by shooting an ATF officer. The government then gave them ample time to simply walk out of the building without harm coming to anyone and it is ONLY when the government moved to breech a wall in the compound did some members of the Davidians decide to commit murder-suicide. If the government had wanted them dead because the Davidians were "rebels", they would have died on the first day. No question in my mind. How is it even conceivable to think otherwise?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #63 July 25, 2012 Quote Here you go: http://shop.jpfo.org/...uct_detail&p=103 It's even made in America. Just submitted my order. Can't wait for it to come in. It's going to be my new favorite cap.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #64 July 25, 2012 IMHO, Waco and the Davidians is not a good example to illustrate any point you'd want to make. The thing about the gun control conversation is that it always starts with "we shouldn't let lunatics have assault rifles", then when it gets to a more detailed level, it devolves into something resembling Bloomberg's ban on sugary soft drinks bigger than 16 ounces. My own feeling is that if there's any relief to be had from lunatics with weapons, it lies more in the area of mental health services. Carry on.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #65 July 25, 2012 Quote In much the same way, any individual or group of individuals who believe they'd be able to protect themselves from our own government if the government was determined are really just fooling themselves. They wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be declared domestic terrorists and would be very quickly dealt with. Liberal hogwash... Just because you can't see a way, doesn't mean that others can.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 886 #66 July 25, 2012 So we can expect to go back to 11 rounds as opposed to 13? That was ever so helpful in protecting me from a true assault weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #67 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuote In much the same way, any individual or group of individuals who believe they'd be able to protect themselves from our own government if the government was determined are really just fooling themselves. They wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be declared domestic terrorists and would be very quickly dealt with. Liberal hogwash... Just because you can't see a way, doesn't mean that others can. Uh . . . is that what you meant to say?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #68 July 25, 2012 Quote So we can expect to go back to 11 rounds as opposed to 13? That was ever so helpful in protecting me from a true assault weapon. How about keep 13 but get rid of 100? Is that really too much to ask? Is that completely unreasonable?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #69 July 25, 2012 Well, if you have a 16 ounce drink in each hand, instead of a single 32 oz. drink, how will you hold a weapon? Let's not be too quick to dismiss a solution until we fully understand the simple beauty of it's effectiveness.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #70 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis is an example of citizens rebelling against their government and look how long it took to subdue them. Oh my, what an amazing fiction you appear to have bought into. They were not "rebels." They refused to speak about a weapons charge and escalated the situation by shooting an ATF officer. The government then gave them ample time to simply walk out of the building without harm coming to anyone and it is ONLY when the government moved to breech a wall in the compound did some members of the Davidians decide to commit murder-suicide. If the government had wanted them dead because the Davidians were "rebels", they would have died on the first day. No question in my mind. How is it even conceivable to think otherwise? So now you suggest that our government could suppress any insurrection with summary executions? You think the People would be happy with too many of those such incidents? It's hard to claim we have civil rights when that happens often. And it's much harder to demonize our own people rather than ones that are distinct minorities (ie, Muslims). You miss the point when you argue if the Davidians were good or bad people. This is about how hard it is to control the people. And no, they couldn't execute the Davidians on the first day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #71 July 25, 2012 Quote Quote So we can expect to go back to 11 rounds as opposed to 13? That was ever so helpful in protecting me from a true assault weapon. How about keep 13 but get rid of 100? Is that really too much to ask? Is that completely unreasonable? Seems fair enough. 31 rds plus for LEO and Mil, 30 and below are plenty for Comps and weekend fun. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #72 July 25, 2012 Quote Quote So we can expect to go back to 11 rounds as opposed to 13? That was ever so helpful in protecting me from a true assault weapon. How about keep 13 but get rid of 100? Is that really too much to ask? Is that completely unreasonable? No, as long as it's in line with other reasonable restrictions on things which are more likely to kill us. Perhaps we could start with restricting motor vehicles capable of speeds over 30 MPH beyond the speed limit to police and military. Speeding fatalities aren't limited to the offending driver. Bans on beer containers with more than 24 servings would be a fine be a fine idea too since drunk driving is a factor in about half the annual traffic fatalities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #73 July 25, 2012 QuotePerhaps we could start with restricting motor vehicles capable of speeds over 30 MPH beyond the speed limit to police and military. Speeding fatalities aren't limited to the offending driver. I've got no problem with that. I don't understand why street legal cars don't have speed restrictions on them as it is. The car I currently own is more than capable of going 150 mph. I can use the power to accelerate from 0-60 everyday, but I'll never use the speed to 150. I should also point out however that I need a license to drive it and it's registered with the state just to be able to drive it on public streets at even 15 mph. In the wrong or untrained hands it, as are all cars, is quite deadly. While I don't have to prove my sanity to buy or drive it, I do have to meet certain minimum requirements including carrying liability insurance to cover those who might be injured by its operation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #74 July 25, 2012 Quote I wish I could opt out of the ILA portion. I called their customer service number and requested to opt out of their promotions. It seemed to create a moderate effect as I receive much less junk mail.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 886 #75 July 25, 2012 The junk mail is sickening. Especially when cost is considered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
