Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on February 27, 2007, 04:41:27 PM
-
story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html)
Gist is he called Assault weapons used by hunters Terrorist weapons and ended his Career, almost overnight.
Maybe Jim Zumbo should go to rehab, it seems to work for everyone else.
The response to this is interesting, all his sponsors are gone or going, his show looks like it’s canceled and he resigned his job at a magazine after over 6000 complaints came in.
I feel a bit sorry for the guy, but I do not have a lot of tolerance for hunters who are willing to sell the rights of their fellow gun owners down the river. The 2cnd amendment was NEVER about hunting. I wonder if congress and maybe the Dems will see a lesson in this?
-
as soon as all the "terrorist guns" are gone, the terrorists will start using guns like his beloved Remington "deer gun" (Good out to 600 yards btw) and then what will we do?
A gun is a gun and anyone who wants to get rid of one type will want to get rid of all types as soon as the opportunity arises.
Honestly, Ive never heard of the guy but it is clear to me that he is no supporter of gun owners.
-
You give the Dems too much credit if you think they can see anything of truth.
-
This all sounds like an "inconveinent truth."
;)
-
if he thinks emptying a 30 round clip to nail a prarie dog is uncool then lol that d00d must have been PO'd when he saw Caddy Shack
whats the best weapon for a witch hunt?
-
It's been several years now but a Colt rep did something much the same by making comments and stating Colt was changing it's position on civilian firearm ownership. I have not purchased a Colt product since.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
if he thinks emptying a 30 round clip to nail a prarie dog is uncool then lol that d00d must have been PO'd when he saw Caddy Shack
whats the best weapon for a witch hunt?
A Streetsweeper (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/SH09-E.HTM)
Or this
The Saw (http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/minimi/index.htm)
-
I don't know, I've always been a little partial to claymore mines myself. Or maybe a little C4 under the gas tank and wired to the starter.
But all things being equal, I can cause more damage with my Remington 700BDL 30-06 than I can with my AR-15.
-
Personally, what he said makes sense to "hunters". Which is the forum he set the "comment in", not "all gun owners".
The words "Maybe I'm a Traditionalist" explained it for me. BTW, I own a USP 45 and a Sig 30-06. They panicked when they didn't need too. They and some of you are reading into this a helluva lot farther than you should be.
Where in this "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles." does he "call gun owners Terrorists? I'm sorry, but I ain't buying this bullchit. When a remark from someone who has been hunting for over 40 years, gets lambasted, and those lambasting cannot even get his comments right. This pisses me off more than anything. Solidarity among gun owners is the goal. Taking a comment like this and "running with it", only creates an unnecessary rift.
-
f-14 is teh t3rorist plane
-
Originally posted by Debonair
f-14 is teh t3rorist plane
:noid
-
(http://whatbrick.googlepages.com/evil-rifle.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Debonair
f-14 is teh t3rorist plane
Well, yes ... actually it is! :D
-
The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.
Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.
They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?
But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.
My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.
I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.
Jim Zumbo
-
Where in this "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles." does he "call gun owners Terrorists? I'm sorry, but I ain't buying this bullchit. When a remark from someone who has been hunting for over 40 years, gets lambasted, and those lambasting cannot even get his comments right. This pisses me off more than anything. Solidarity among gun owners is the goal. Taking a comment like this and "running with it", only creates an unnecessary rift.
The rift was already there. Zumbo just clarified the (Elmer) Fudd perspective. When he made the statement, and reinforced by his half assed apology, it was obvious that Zumbo wouldn't know the RTKBA if it bit him in the ass.
The problem, of course -- nuances aside -- is that, as expected, the people "running with it" are the Brady folk. They jumped on this immediately. So perhaps you should write a letter to them asking them to clarify Zumbo's position, since oddly they seem to be doing a poor job of it.
In fact, his language is right out of the worst the Brady campaign has to offer. At this time, with a very real ban bill coming across the line in IL and a federal ban far more restrictive than the past one submitted in Washington, the damage he has caused is significant. Not crucial perhaps, but another firearm "authority" that supports their primary spin that hunting is what the 2nd is all about, and if it's not a hunting rifle then it has no purpose. And, the word association of "terrorist" and "ban" speak to deeper beliefs and play well to those wanting to piss all over the 2nd.
Maybe I'm a bit sensitive because I hear the anti gun politicians in my state use that same Zumboesque language over and over again with each assault on my rights. I have to actively fight on the phone, mail and letters to the editor on a quarterly basis while the Fudds sit on their tulips smug in the false belief that if theyr take my gun their centerfire sniper assassin rifles will be safe. Since the crime statistics do not back up a position against semi autos, the ONLY reason for the AR ban efforts is because they think it's the easiest target today. They are used in about 1-2 percent of all crime. That's it. Even if bans worked, were talking a "margin of error" cure to firearm criminal activity. If anyone thinks it will stop with semi autos, guess again.
Maybe when these "traditionalists" are restricted to an over/under shotgun with $50 per box ammo and a $500 registration fee, or a black powder muzzle loader or bow for hunting they will get the picture. And it's not like hunting is all that politically correct these days, or like hunters make up the significant firearm ownership base or are at the forefront of the RTKBA fight.
The one good thing is that this brought the debate out in the open. If Zumbo can be reformed, and is believable in the process (and not just waffling to get his endorsements back) then it could do some good. Perhaps he can open the eyes of other Fudds that there is actually a big picture. But, he will never undo the broader public damage he has created.
Charon
-
Looks like it was people threatening to boycott Remmington that got him fired.
He sounds like a decent fella who just picked a terrible time to be divisive. The news article seems to fault NRA members for "turning" on him. Its quite the opposite...people felt he betrayed them.
Maybe he truly gets it now, its sad to see him loose so much....but when your living depends on what you say, you have to know your audience better than he clearly did.
I'm a pre-ban AR-15 owner...and think what he said was way out of line.
-
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site.
That sounds familiar
It sounds like Zumbo would fit right in with the aholes at the NZ Deerstalkers Association who through the stupidity of being blinded by their own elitist snobbery saw them support legislation to introduce tougher gun regulations, that if had of been made into law, would have put an end to the rights of thousands of people in the gun owning fraternity from enjoying their sport/hobby.
Talk about back stabbing sell outs, but of course the worms at the NZDA thought they would be unaffected... because they are so "special", and besides, bolt action rifles weren’t on the "to be banned" list.
-
Denying the need for the 2nd Amendment is like denying the need for oxygen. Fear those who wish to make you defenseless.
-
i dont think the 2nd amendmant is for self defense or hunting
it is there so u can kill politixians
thats why they have thickly laqured hair & are all fat & u r not allowed to go in their buildings
-
Defending yourself from, as you say, politixians is what I meant. :)
-
OMFG i just got teh good idea
bambi's mom 4 president
-
I can't wait until Doe Season...:t
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Denying the need for the 2nd Amendment is like denying the need for oxygen. Fear those who wish to make you defenseless.
Defending from what, Deer?
-
excel get's it. It will happen here... divide and conquer.
I hear from gun owners here once in a while that the NRA is too extreme in defending every gun right..
Well, they are correct to do so and to not do so is a sell out to the people who would strip you of all firearms rights... they will never be happy with taking just a little.. they want it all.
If you don't belong to the NRA you are guilty of betraying the rest of us gun owners. If you say out loud that you believe that the NRA goes too far in protecting our rights then you are betraying the 2nd.
I have never heard of this guy. He sounds like he is just an old man with no firearms experiance to speak of. He likes to hunt. the gun is just a tool to bring down the prey to him and whatever he thinks is best for that is the only gun he needs or thinks anyone else needs.
There are bird and skeet shooters out there that think the only gun anyone should own is a shotgun and have no problem with helping the brady bunch ban everything else..
We must all hang together or surely we will hang seperately.
lazs
-
You anti-gun people will all be sorry when the Chinese learn to control big game by remote control. You'll wish you had sufficient training in assault rifles by then, for all your grain are belong to them if not.
-
I'm not Anti-Gun. I own guns. Bottom line is this, most are panicking over something that they have already taken out of context.
-
As I have stated before. Our Forefathers were wise enough to realize that all forms off government become corrupt over a period of time. They gave us the Second Amendment so the People could wash away the corrupt with the politicians blood. There is always a dark motive why rulers want to make the People defenseless, just look at world history.
When the government fears the people there is Democracy, when the People fear the government there is tyranny.
-
well.. the second was not their to protect the rights of hunters exclusively or the rights of skeet shooters exclusively or any other segment of the shooting sports.
I don't really care what they consider proper tools for their sports. It has no bearing in the second in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Xargos
As I have stated before. Our Forefathers were wise enough to realize that all forms off government become corrupt over a period of time.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I had formerly thought the 2nd amendment exists because we didn't not have a standing army up to the task of defeating confidently Indians and Brits in 1787. We needed citizen soldiers that is.
Regards,
hap
-
I had formerly thought the 2nd amendment exists because we didn't not have a standing army up to the task of defeating confidently Indians and Brits in 1787. We needed citizen soldiers that is.
Nope. In fact, after much debate (and the temporary demobilization of the Continental Army) the decision was made to maintain a standing Army in 1784 several years before the formal adoption of the US Constitution. The Constitution also allowed for the continuation of a standing army. While providing some support from external threats, when called to arms the citizen militias of the day were hardly inspiring and generally performed fairly poorly beyond basic, localized self defense. It was realized early on that the country was unlikely to be able to significantly organize the people to a formal military task much beyond having a weapon and knowing how to use it when the town bell rang. At which time the local commander (sheriff or mayor) would march them off. Of course, using arms for individual self protection and to protect the community from disorder is also considered to fall under this in a broader sense.
The limitations placed on the length of tours of duty and the circumstances for which it might be called into federal service further impaired the usefulness of the militia. No militiamen could be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor could the President order the militia to duty outside the United States. The effect of these limitations would be readily apparent during the War of 1812. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-05.htm
The equal cornerstone of the 2nd (which stilll applies today) was to protect us from the necessiary standing Army, should it be misused by a tyrant. The federalist papers cover much of this, as do the open debates between the federalists and anti-federalists of the period, private letters between the founders, and essays published in the contemporary press. This link covers it pretty well.
The Framers feared two things: large standing armies and select militias. A select militia was an armed group formed not from the entire population of a jurisdiction by public notice, but selected by some method that might make them unrepresentative of the community, and a threat to lawful government or to the community. A regular standing army or police force is always a select militia, and it may serve the will of those in power, and be used against the people. Therefore, the Framers intended that the militia should always be able to prevail over the government and its armies or select militias. They did not trust those in power to voluntarily refrain from corruption or the abuses that attend it. The Militia was seen as one of the checks on the power of government, like division of powers between the central and state governments, between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and between the two houses of the legislative branch.
http://www.constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm
Note: a Select Militia represents a "National Guard" model. The current National Guard is ultimately a federal body regardless of initial state controls. By organization and function it could not be the militia outlined in the 2nd. A General Militia is "the people with their guns."
And this:
Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." [59] The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." [60] On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.
In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment. [61] He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [62] "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." [63]
We also see this blending of individualist and collective accounts of the right to bear arms in remarks by Judge Thomas Cooley, one of the most influential 19th century constitutional commentators. Noting that the state might call into its official militia only "a small number" of the eligible citizenry, Cooley wrote that "if the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check." [64] Finally, it is worth noting the remarks of Theodore Schroeder, one of the most important developers of the theory of freedom of speech early in this century. [65] "[T]he obvious import [of the constitutional guarantee to carry arms]," he argues, "is to promote a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of government, because only governments have ever disarmed any considerable class of people as a means toward their enslavement." [66]
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
Charon
-
Read any New England state constitution for any clarification needed of the second amendment intent. Most of them are more clearly written and of course in the same time period.
If you're actually interested in the truth, that is...otherwise don't bother.
-
VOR, can you give me a linky please. I googled it but not finding the right articles.
-
Vermont (http://www.harbornet.com/rights/vermont.txt)
Mass (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm)
Here are some examples I pulled up with Google. I entered the search string [state name] state constitution.
Many states have a common and often verbatim blurb:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Key words: themselves AND the State. How things have changed.
I haven't read them all, but Ironically the red states have more restrictive legislation in their constitutions than the blue states do in what I have read so far.
-
Thanks. :aok
-
Sure.
-
Oh my, how far have we strayed...:(
-
The way it is supposed to work is that if the government does something.. imposes some law that is unconstitutional or simply totally repugnant to the body of the people...
If the people refuse to obey it and the government uses the standing army to enforce it (troops, national guard etc.) then the PEOPLE, being armed, would be able to overthrow said tyrant.
It would of course take a very large infringement as we are a lazy and cowardly lot but.. eventualy.. they will piss enough people off.
At that point.. the debate over if an "assault weapon" is a good bambi killer or not will seem pretty insane.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Oh my, how far have we strayed...:(
America is sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
is the cure.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The way it is supposed to work is that if the government does something.. imposes some law that is unconstitutional or simply totally repugnant to the body of the people...
If the people refuse to obey it and the government uses the standing army to enforce it (troops, national guard etc.) then the PEOPLE, being armed, would be able to overthrow said tyrant.
It would of course take a very large infringement as we are a lazy and cowardly lot but.. eventualy.. they will piss enough people off.
At that point.. the debate over if an "assault weapon" is a good bambi killer or not will seem pretty insane.
lazs
Sadly though by the time we lose something like Freedom of speech a right I am sure everyone agrees is important enough(well almost everyone), the second will be gone or neutered so it won't help.
To bad the anti gun people of this nation won't see it untell its to late.
-
How many of you own guns as a means to defend you and yours against the Government &/or to participate in it's overthrow?
Thanks,
hap
-
Me.
-
Hap, if push comes to shove then every American who owns a firearm will and that's what the government fears.
-
How many of you own guns as a means to defend you and yours against the Government &/or to participate in it's overthrow?
I own guns because it's my birthright as an American. It has been for over 200 years. I own guns because I like to shoot, and because I respect history. It also helps me keep in touch with my former military service, which represented a notable period of my life. That, in fact, prompted me to purchase my first firearm to complement the .22s I grew up with from age seven.
At the core, though, gun ownership represents that I still have individual rights as an American and the means to at least give pause to those who would ignore my rights out of self interest, whether that be a criminal intent on rape robbery or murder, or an angry mob or the government.
Frankly, though, it is obvious that over the years a great many fellow citizens have decide that being well kept subjects is more important than being a free American, with all the messiness that freedom can bring with it. You don't just see it on the 2nd -- the 4th and 5th have been gradually eviscerated by the Republicans while the Democrats chop away at the 2nd (and I bet the senior republican leadership is no true friend of the 2nd at the end of the day). In fact, we may just get to see Bush Lite sign that AWB, like he said he would if one were placed on his desk. Meanwhile, as long as American Idol comes on at it's regularly scheduled time there is no outrage. "As long as you have nothing to hide... Think of the Children... Praise the lord and pass the remote control." The 1st is more strongly defended, given it's the core of the mainstream media, but the "think of the children" attacks are already underway there.
The elites who are on the other side of our widening class war, who want illegals as cheap labor for their corporate benefactors and who sell out our manufacturing base to near slave labor in 3rd world countries -- elites both conservative and liberal (lets not forget the plethora of limousine liberals) -- no doubt feel a bit uneasy with the idea of Joe laid off factory worker and his thousands of peers having access to firearms at the foot of their secure, gated communities.
Just how likely is a worst case scenario? Personally I think we'll go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Effectively, and in our own name and with full knowledge and majority approval, giving away rights that will likley never return. But...
What would happen if the terrorists really scored one with a nuke? What governement would come out of that? How long would the martial law last? What new "patriot" act would be passed? How long would elections be suspended? Personally, I think that one is up in the air.
We've recently seen the New Orleans police confiscate guns from legal owners in their own homes at a time when the government wasn't able to protect them. We've see legislators call laws meant to prevent that from happening in the future "insanity." So no, I don't think we're "past all that."
I own guns for a lot of purposes, and many of those are higher on the day-to-day list of personal priorities than arming the bunker for Revolution II. But, I do have a fundamental respect for the 2nd, and the rest of the BOR for that matter, that is both deep and serious.
Charon
-
hap... I believe that charon and others have answered your question very we3ll..
For me.. I own guns because of the enjoyment they give me and because I feel that I need to take my fate in my own hands.. that I need to protect myself from all forms of tyranny be it foreign or domestic.. another government or a burglar or a mugger or my own government gone insane.
I also own em because people like you don't have the guts or the morals to.
What is your understanding of what the second means?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charon
I own guns because it's my birthright as an American. It has been for over 200 years. I own guns because I like to shoot, and because I respect history. It also helps me keep in touch with my former military service, which represented a notable period of my life. That, in fact, prompted me to purchase my first firearm to complement the .22s I grew up with from age seven.
At the core, though, gun ownership represents that I still have individual rights as an American and the means to at least give pause to those who would ignore my rights out of self interest, whether that be a criminal intent on rape robbery or murder, or an angry mob or the government.
Frankly, though, it is obvious that over the years a great many fellow citizens have decide that being well kept subjects is more important than being a free American, with all the messiness that freedom can bring with it. You don't just see it on the 2nd -- the 4th and 5th have been gradually eviscerated by the Republicans while the Democrats chop away at the 2nd (and I bet the senior republican leadership is no true friend of the 2nd at the end of the day). In fact, we may just get to see Bush Lite sign that AWB, like he said he would if one were placed on his desk. Meanwhile, as long as American Idol comes on at it's regularly scheduled time there is no outrage. "As long as you have nothing to hide... Think of the Children... Praise the lord and pass the remote control." The 1st is more strongly defended, given it's the core of the mainstream media, but the "think of the children" attacks are already underway there.
The elites who are on the other side of our widening class war, who want illegals as cheap labor for their corporate benefactors and who sell out our manufacturing base to near slave labor in 3rd world countries -- elites both liberal and conservative (lets not forget the plethora of limousine liberals) -- no doubt feel a bit uneasy with the idea of Joe laid off factory worker and his thousands of peers having access to firearms at the foot of their secure, gated communities.
Just how likely is a worst case scenario? Personally I think we'll go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Effectively, and in our own name and with full knowledge and majority approval, giving away rights that will likley never return. But...
What would happen if the terrorists really scored one with a nuke? What governement would come out of that? How long would the martial law last? What new "patriot" act would be passed? How long would elections be suspended? Personally, I think that one is up in the air.
We've recently seen the New Orleans police confiscate guns from legal owners in their own homes at a time when the government wasn't able to protect them. We've see legislators call laws meant to prevent that from happening in the future "insanity." So no, I don't think we're "past all that."
I own guns for a lot of purposes, and many of those are higher on the day-to-day list of personal priorities than arming the bunker for Revolution II. But, I do have a fundamental respect for the 2nd, and the rest of the BOR for that matter, that is both deep and serious.
Charon
Well said as always Charon.
It sad how smug those "subjects" can be about how right they are about the rights they don't care about.
-
While I dont agree with all the points you made, you have stated some things very well.
-
Charon pretty well covered all the bases in my case as well.
-
What occurs to me from reading this is the rather over the top reaction to the man's comments. You might disagree with him but was it neccessary to destroy him in the process? He has lost his livelihood and reputation in one fell swoop. There seems to have been a concerted campaign to punish him to the extreme for his perceived disloyalty to the cause.
Why was that neccessary? Surely a letter from the NRA or a personal approach to point out the error of his ways would have sufficed. If it had been handled in that way, maybe it wouldn't have ended up in the mainstream press further serving to convince the anti gun or neutral public that gun lobby is a bunch of extremists. Turning on your own does nothing for PR among the wider public.
Plus comments like this don't help.
i dont think the 2nd amendmant is for self defense or hunting
it is there so u can kill politixians
As I have stated before. Our Forefathers were wise enough to realize that all forms off government become corrupt over a period of time. They gave us the Second Amendment so the People could wash away the corrupt with the politicians blood.
How many of you own guns as a means to defend you and yours against the Government &/or to participate in it's overthrow?
Hap, if push comes to shove then every American who owns a firearm will and that's what the government fears.
Killing politicans? Having guns against the day when you decide to overthrow the goverment? Isn't that terrorism?
That kind of thing is perfect ammunition for the anti gun lobbyists. 'Look they're threatening to overthrow the democratically elected government.' In these days of paranoia with words like terrorism and war being bandied around. Maybe a less antagonistic attitude might work better. If gun owners and the NRA can be tagged as gun nuts and perceived as a threat the easier it is to bring in restrictive laws. It would be too easy to bring in legislation, that while it complies to the letter of the constitution, might very well drive a 50 ton tank through the spirit of the second amendment. You could still have the 'right to bear arms' but it would be laden down with so many restrictions and complications that it's hardly worth it.
It would be ironic that the very thing you fear most would be hastened into law because your own overly robust defence of your cause. You can bet too that the same legislation would be popular with the ignorant masses who know nothing about guns.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Killing politicans? Having guns against the day when you decide to overthrow the goverment? Isn't that terrorism?
"terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. study U.S. history much?
-
cpxx, if bearing arms against one's own government is terrorism then the Founding Fathers were terrorists. They would have found the pacifistic, limp-wristed notion that armed revolution against our modern government is never justified to be ludicrous.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
but was it neccessary to destroy him in the process?
CP,
This was the Casper Star Tribune's take in a recent editorial. They disapproved of the NRA's heavy handedness.
Pish . . . a legit association founded to improve gunnery, then in the 70's overtaken by reactionary politicos.
All of it is so silly, and the zillion dollar gun barrons laughing to the bank draped in the 2nd amendment.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Thanks for clearing that up.
I had formerly thought Regards,
hap
that's where your problems begin. refrain from thinking sir, clearly you aren't up to the task.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. study U.S. history much?
Indeed I am quite familiar with U.S. history. We were taught it in school. It's a bit shorter than our own. But that was then and this is now.
Bearing arms against your own government is described as terrorism these days. It's one thing to resist your 'own government' when it's way over there in London. We Irish have a long history of that! But it's quite another to bear arms against an American government democratically elected by your countrymen. It's a big difference.
But I am talking about perception. I know that none of you are planning to overthrow the US government. (Well I hope not?) But what of the anti gun lobby? How do they see the NRA? It's all about PR. Guns and gun owners have a bad press. Wouldn't it be better to make guns a bit more warm and fuzzy. Well OK maybe not fuzzy:cool: But you know what I mean.
I don't think pillorying a member of the group who failed to toe the party line is either sensible or conducive to rational debate.
-
cpxx.. it is not "failure to tow the party line" it is someone that gun owners supported by buying the magazine he writes in.. it is him telling us that we are not worthy and that we are terrorists. To hell with him. We simply informed his mag that we wouldn't be reading the articles of someone who thinks so little of us.
This is the perfect way to do it.. vote with your dollars.
As for revolution... we don't fawn over our government like UK members do. We distrust it as a rule and it knows it. the government knows we are armed and that they can only push us so far (hopefully a lot less than yours has pushed you) It is an uneasy truce but one that works for us. If guns are gone then the balance is destroyed and we become decaying socialists like the UK unable to even defend ourselves from predators much less the government.
No one here wants a revolution... we want the government to back off so we don't need one. It seems that you feel that you are the government.. we feel that it is our duty to protect against government getting too much power.
hap.. you never answered the question... What do you think the second is all about? Is it hunting or... maybe you feel it is an amendment that gives the government the right to arm its soldiers?
lazs
-
This was the Casper Star Tribune's take in a recent editorial. They disapproved of the NRA's heavy handedness.
As usual, the Media pits the "NRA" vs the common folk and common sense. It is also inaccurate. A bunch of individuals, tens of thousands independently, had already toasted Zumbo before the NRA even woke up about the issue. They were late to the picnic. This is well established and public record for anyone that can read the dates on a message board post or press release. The Casper Star's editorial stuff must have just looked to the Brady Campaign Web site or the Washington Post to "get the facts" just like the Trib and Sun Times do in Chicago.
Pish . . . a legit association founded to improve gunnery, then in the 70's overtaken by reactionary politicos.
All of it is so silly, and the zillion dollar gun barrons laughing to the bank draped in the 2nd amendment.
Of course, they had to do that as the political process put their initial purpose at risk. For example, the most common weapon used in high power matches today, unless I'm mistaken, is the AR-15 platform followed by the M1A and to some extent the Garand. All but the Garand are impacted by the pending semi auto bans.
As for "zillion $ gun barrons..."
Last I heard George Soros and his Hollywood buddies, etc. were putting notable funding into the anti 2nd efforts. The Brady bunch has the resources to get those 1/2 truths out to the media and buy their anti politicians. I know I hardly have a "zillion $" and without the NRA I have no voice. NRA speaks for me (generally) and about 8 million PEOPLE just like me.
Charon
-
It's a bit shorter than our own.
That's just it. We lack all those centuries where the peasantry was subjugated by the king :)
Charon
-
hap doesn't know anything about the NRA in the 70's or today and he doesn't know much at all about the second amendment.
charon is correct in that the real money is in the anti gun side. The NRA is a body of the people.. the anti gun lobby is a body of rich and powerful politicians who want to shape the politics of the nation.
Hap is being duped like so many others.. I don't want soros or finesteins socialist gun free vision of America.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charon
That's just it. We lack all those centuries where the peasantry was subjugated by the king :)
Charon
the pilgrims/settlers came from over there, same history. they just said "screw this crap, we're getting out of here!" :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hap doesn't know anything about the NRA in the 70's or today and he doesn't know much at all about the second amendment.
charon is correct in that the real money is in the anti gun side. The NRA is a body of the people.. the anti gun lobby is a body of rich and powerful politicians who want to shape the politics of the nation.
Hap is being duped like so many others.. I don't want soros or finesteins socialist gun free vision of America.
lazs
Hap isn’t being duped, he sounds like he is whole heartedly against the rights of his fellow Americans. He should be ashamed, yet he is smug instead.
-
SMUG ALERT!
-
get yer witch hunt gun
-
I have a line on some cheap used Russian WW2 era tanks. Can I bring them over and go hunting with them?
Or better yet do some target shooting?
You have to draw the line somewhere.
If not I want my very own Davy Crockett.
-
If you fire non-explosive ordinance out of your tank, habu, you certainly CAN if you find a range that will allow cannon fire. I know of one off hand.
We should ban tanks and cannons. There are too many armored drive-by's in the ghetto.
-
If you can own them legally how long until a terrorist group figures out that you can buy a bunch and then attack something with them?
-
Originally posted by Habu
If you can own them legally how long until a terrorist group figures out that you can buy a bunch and then attack something with them?
:rofl
-
Was that a serious question?
-
oh yay, I'm sure a terrorist group is looking for all possible ways to obey the law :rolleyes:
-
TERRORISTS RAPEED MY SISTER:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: oh, wait, i dont have a sister. oh, well....
-
Originally posted by Debonair
TERRORISTS RAPEED MY SISTER:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: oh, wait, i dont have a sister. oh, well....
Sure you do. She's inside the other half of your skull. There's plenty of room there for her, it's vacant. Sucks about your rape though.......
-
the anti gun lobby is a body of rich and powerful politicians who want to shape the politics of the nation.
You might have added, who also have well-armed private security. to insulate them from the things many of us commoners have to deal with
-
habu.. you need to read up a little on the second. It is an amendment that protects the right of the people to bring hand carried arms to a fight. ones that can be stored in their homes.
What do you think is "going too far"? what is the reason for banning full auto firearms for instance? Where would you stop and say.. enough?
debonair.. I believe that everyone is glad to hear that you really only have an imaginary sister. Maybe you can introduce her to your "girlfriend".
lazs