Richards

I suspect the issue here might be one of your inability to differentiate between paranoid fantasy and reality. OK, well then the best thing to do is hunker down in your bunker with your arsenal, and wait in anticipation for people like myself who are part of the conspiracy to take your guns, to leave you defenceless against the hordes of gay commie terrorists who are about to come charging over the hill any minute now. By the way try to enjoy Christmas, the guys who fly the black helicopters are government employees so christmas is a stat holiday for them. Hence they will not be flying over your house for the next 24 hours Wow. Hey polarizing the issue really is much easier than trying to have an intelligent debate. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Again I am not advocating a ban. Fair argument. Douva, 99% of all hot button issues are debated on inflamatory claims that are not based in reality, be it the gay marriage issue, abortion, immigration etc. In my case I felt that the other side of the debate had a right to question the issue, right or wrong. By the way one of my earlier posts I qualified my position by acknowledging a lack of expertise. When I say be reasonable I mean at least be willing to sit down with the other side to hear their perspective, without going on the offensive. If at the end you find yourself in disagreement with thier position then by all means stick to your guns. You have as much say in the political landscape as anyone on the anti-gun side. What I am referring to when suggesting reasonability is the table pounding and finger pointing that goes on whenever this issue comes up. Wether or not the anti-gun crowd (and again I am not one of them) is fully informed they have the right to question the neccessity of assault rifles (or any other issue on the planet). Being more diplomatic does not mean that the pro-gun side neccessarily has to make concessions. It simply means that they have to realise how to win people to thier side, and they are not doing a good job of that. Some diplomacy would correct that. Anyway, It is late and I am not done my gift wrapping, so Merry Christmas and best to you and your family in the new year. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Howdy, I am not out to ban assault rifles, despite the fact that others keep putting those words in my mouth. I guess when it comes to gun control I do not have a strong position one way or the other. My primary argument on this thread was the issue of the NRA being a little over the top with their antics. Somehow this became a debate about assault rifles. With respect to assault rifles, I realize it is a hot button issue with both sides. As the issue of owning mortars and rockets has come up I think the debate might center around where the line should be drawn in terms of ownership. Can people own missiles and mortars? 20 mm cannons? In light of this question some people have tried to draw the line on assault rifles, right or wrong. Regardless of ones position, it should be obvious that questioning the neccessity of owning one is perfectly reasonable, and weighing the benefits against the costs does not qualify as an attack on anyones fundemental rights. It is simply a question. In fairness, Douva has at least answered the question with respect to the principle behind the second ammendment, but again so many people on this thread have proven my point by going on the attack and labelling me as being the anti-gun crowd simply because I acknowledge that the other side of the debate has a right to ask the question. Anyway, Happy Solstice, and cheers to you and your family in the new year. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Well I can assure you that I am not pretending to be a gun owner. I think at this stage there is a clear misunderstanding as to where I am coming from. If you do a search on all my posts on other gun related threads you will see where I stand on the issue and you will also see where people on here have criticised me for my pro-gun views. I can't change it if some people on this site want to see me as anti-gun. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I have never stated that we needed to ban assault rifles. I simply brought that up as an example. I have stated in prior posts that I would enjoy shooting assault rifles. I am quite aware that standard hunting rifles come in semi-auto. I have never suggested otherwise. I have never addressed you or anyone on this thread as an extremist. I have been quite polite to you throughout so it is unfortunate that you have interpreted my comments as a personal attack. I on the other hand have been accused of being a leftie gun-o-phobe, having alterior motives, and such simply because I tried to put the other side of the argument into perspective. It is not on that one micro issue that I was addressing the NRA leadership (not you) as extremists. The issues I have commented on included the statement implying intent to shoot it out with authorities "my cold dead hands", and the fact that people who have pushed for gun legislation (Wendy Cukier) have received numerous death threats for doing so. I contemplated NRA membership once because I am into shooting and I beleive in gun owners rights but I happen to think they go too far with their antics. No. My idea of meeting in the middle meant at least being willing to talk to the other side about the issue (in non-paramilitary clothing) in a non-confrontational manner. Beleive in the right to own assault rifles? Fine, but don't go labelling everyone who has a different point of view as a gun-o-phobe. Again, I have no personal problem with assault rifles. I am simply pointing out that some do and the standard name calling and confrontational approach used by so many on the pro-gun side do not help the issue. No. I do not ignore another persons rights simply because I do not have a strong personal interest in that right. No one has ever accused me of that before. *** A true moderate looks at each issue based on the facts and picks the position, left, right, or center, supported by the facts. *** That is what i am trying to do. Unfortunately I am being accused of being at worst a gun-o-phobe or at least an appeaser. I do beleive in standing up for rights based on the facts. Occasionally I choose discretion as to which battles I will pick but in general I look at each issue independantly. Anyway I somehow seem to have provoked some people with my choice of words (I have a remarkable talent for this), but that was not my intent. My point initially was to make the issue that the I do not feel the NRA are using the best approach to promoting the rights of gun owners. Somehow this spiraled into a million tangent arguments. I must admit that I find amusement in the fact that this is the first time on this site where I have ever angered anyone by appearing too far to the left . My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Thats a bit of a stretch. I doubt anyone who beleives in hell chooses it. I highly doubt that when someone is being sentenced to hell they go along willingly. By your argument anyone in hell should be allowed to accept god and get out of hell. If after 5 trillion milleniums of hell shouldn't someone get a chance to reconsider their choices that were made during the 65-85 years they were on earth? An all powerfull god has the power to make your spirit disappear so you simply cease to exist. He is not forced to keep you in torment (regardless of your apparent choice to experience that torment). The whole concept of hell seems needlessly sadistic. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I am sure that without assault rifles some guys may come up with other methods, but removing the most simple means might confound the less motivated nutbar. You cannot tell me that semi-auto assault rifles are not more effective for violence than bolt actions. If that were the case our troops (not just snipers) would go into battle with bolt actions and pump shotguns. Either way I am not offering a normative perspective here just an observable fact. I think you are positioning my argument as being one of anti gun. I personally do not have a strong position one way or another. I like guns and would love to be able to shoot anything without restriction, however I am not going to have a heart attack over any new rules. The whole point of my argument was one of trying to point out that there is a radical element in the gun community that tarnishes the many. I am not sure why so many people are trying to straw man my position into that of an anti-gun leftie. This is the very thing that makes people in the middle see the pro-gun crowd as militant, and subsequently causes them to err on the side of the anti-gun crowd. When someone is saying something regarding gun control that you disagree with and you go on the attack you come across as the very stereotype that the anti-gun crowd try to perpetuate. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Rosie seems like a very angry person and seems to have a bone to pick with the world. The Tom selleck thing was just a start. More unfortunate is her choice to atack peoples appearance. Not only did she attack Trump for his comb-over, she also criticised the lead singer of the cranberries for being too skinny once. I would frown upon anyone picking on rosie for her physical appearance (Trump proved to be no better than her when he insulted her appearance), so I do not see why it should be acceptable for her to do so. Anyway her career is in the twilight so good riddance. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

OK. I really am not against gun ownership for any reason. Owning a few myself and being a beleiver in the right to use guns in self defence I am generally against overly restrictive laws. I generally prefer minimal regulation of anything when feasible. I really don't think we ned a ban on any weapons, I simply was looking for alternatives to the two polar opposites fighting the issue on extremes. I personally would be fine with the idea of concealed carry laws being implemented up here in Canada. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Yes..a few specialists. Why not all of them? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

How do they come across as being fanatical? *** When thier president who claims to be representing law abiding gun owners, stands up and states "They (presumably the legal authorities) can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands" to tremendous applaus, most people do not see Mr. Rogers promoting safe sportsmanship. That sort of silliness, members who wear fatigues to gun shows and anti-gun-law rallies, and of course death threats sent to people like Wendy Cukier, tend to leave a people with a bad impression. To say that these guys represent sporting gun owners is like saying that the large biker gangs represent motorcycle riders. They may have started out as an organization dedicated to promoting safe gun sportsmanship but they have allowed the political fringe to tarnish their credibility. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Then why don't we send our troops in to battle with bolt actions? I have never supported gun bans since I own some myself. I also realise that criminals will get guns if they want them. Lack of regulation does however make it easier for legal guns to proliferate into the black market. I said from the outset that there are fanatics on both sides of the argument. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No. I am not a gun-o-phobe as you have phrased it. I am not into bringing in more laws. If you are hunting bison then fine. Get a .50 cal. My concern is that people got so bent out of shape when someone tried to ban it. While I like shooting there are more pressing concerns in my world than someone trying to ban a 50 cal sniper rifle. Based on your prior threads you are likely our resident gun expert, and I am obviously at a disadvantage to you in gun knowledge and would be as out of my league debating technical aspects with you as I would debating physics with Bilvon. So if the debate coninues you can rip me apart on gun knowledge. I am just trying to point out that the NRA tend to come across (fairly or not) as being somewhat fanatical and are not doing any good representing law abiding gun owners I'm not. I think it would be really neat to own one and shoot it. I am simply saying that if someone bans them I will not lose much sleep over it. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think the issue is not so much the look but the capacity. Can someone not shoot a .556 rife in bolt action for the same ranges? Again I love shooting, but I think the pro-gun side would gain brownie points by showing a litle flexibility. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think the issue is with high volume semi-autos. I know I am going to get ripped apart for saying this but if the two columbine guys had been using bolt action rifles that hold five rounds there might have been more survivors. Does a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting? I have shot assault weapons and quite enjoyed the experience and I do not think that people who own them are freaks, since I can see the appeal. But if there is an inherent risk to people owning them (I am not saying this is the case) then much like smokers who had to butt out in bars when second hand smoke became an issue, assault weapon owners might have to bite the bullet I agree with you fully. In Canada they first had owners register asault weapons and then they prohibited them (grandfathered for those who already owned them), so there is merit to the creeping regulation argument. There needs to be some kind of agreement as to what is needed and where the law should stop. I am fully for defending gun owners rights. I simply feel that the NRA's fanaticism does a bad job of representing such owners. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Whoa whoa...easy. I am far more on your side than my posts may have suggested. Again I strongly beleive in an individuals right to have a gun for self defence, and I think that in Canada we would do well to allow citizens a greater right to self defence like you have in the US (In canada you can scream pathetically at a 911 recording which will record the sounds of you begging for mercy as an attacker chooses to show you none). I was just trying to put into perspective the other sides view. I am sure that most owners of assault rifles are not criminals and I am not trying to suggest that gun owners are bad people (again..I am one). I just think that since everything in life involves cmpromise why not meet in the middle with the anti-gun crowd and allow some restriction on weapons that have no real hunting value? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Nothing at all. Don't get me wrong. I love shooting. I think asault style weapons can be tremedously fun to shoot. I probably chose a bad example with the 50 cal since it is not used in criminal activity. My argument nonetheless was why were the NRA so opposed to the banning of them. Sure I guess someone who is that seriously into it that they would aquire such a thing would not likely be a criminal. I merely wanted to portray the extremity of the NRA and I regrettably chose a bad example. Beleive me. I strongly support the right of an individual to have a firearm to protect themselves. I just feel that occasionally the NRA would do well to at least be flexible. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I'm am not on top of all the gun laws myself, but anyway I was not referring to fully automatic weapons but the ones that have been converted to semi-auto. I know that even here in Canada you could buy an AK (semi-auto) up untill the early 90's. I also seem to recall that there was a thread on this site about California banning the 50 cal sniper rifle (I could be wrong as I did not read the thread in depth so I apologise if I have my facts all wrong on this one). How someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place? Anyway, I am just saying that the pro-gun lobby would do well with a little flexibility and some leadership that comes across as more balanced. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

***Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown. This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway. It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I am not trying to smear all gun owners (I am one) nor am I trying to smear those who have dispute with the idea of gun laws. I simply cannot help but notice a tendency towrds paranoia by the most vocal gun advocates. Some of the NRA types you meet at gun shows tend to come across as Dale Gribble. I was at a gun show and some guy asked me to sign a petition he had against bill C-68. Since I was not fully informed at the time about the bill i was reluctant to sign, yet I did not feel like getting into an argument with a guy who for whatever reason was decked out in military fatigues so I figured the best way out of it was to say that I did not want my name on any government lists (figuring a guy like that might relate to such a concern). He turns around in what appeared to be the best Dale Gribble immitation i have ever seen and said in all seriousness "Do you think the government doesn't already have a file on you". The more militant NRA types tend to see black helicopters everywhere and subscribe to the most sinister conspiracies regarding gun control. To be honest I think any credibility the NRA might have once had as a legitimate sporting organization has been lost, due to the political fanatics who now seem to represent it. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Yes. I can't really come up with any real reason for it. I was just raised that way. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Dixie Chicks? Nah, I'm not important enough. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So, in a nutshell, he was a nut. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree with you but I will also counter that point by saying that the pro-gun lobby is also driven by fear. The conspiracy theories that pro-gun types spew out reek of paranoia. I am not bashing gun owners as I fully support the right of individuals to own firearms but both sides of the debate tend to be run by extremists. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I could see Jimmy Hoffa, but Sinatra and Monroe? Why? Maybe they took themselves too seriously. And they thought their biggest fear was obsessed fans. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.