Mr VJP

Sure we have a problem. We have a crime problem caused by criminals. Taking guns out of the hands of the victims and potential victims will not solve the problem, it will make it worse. With the bad economy, high unemployment, illegal immigration, gangs and drugs, this problem is going to get a lot worse. Americans know it, and that is why gun sales are at an all time high. They know no one can protect you but yourself. So why is the government making it so hard for average Americans to be able to defend themselves? Hell, the government frequently prosecutes people who have had the misfortune to have to kill someone in self defense!

I'm old enough to recall when the group "Handgun Control" wanted all revolvers banned, simply because they were handguns. This was before semi-auto pistols became more common in this country. They will call for gun bans of all types untill all types of guns are banned. Since when do we think, allowing gun laws to be written by those who are not well versed in firearms or their use, will ceate any laws that will actually solve gun crime issues? Do we allow garbagemen to write the laws that control brain surgury? We have enough laws on the books, both state and federal, to prevent all future gun crimes in this land. The laws are always plea bargained away in criminal cases, but strictly enforced against the typical gun owner who unknowingly breaks the law, to remove that gun owners right to own any guns in the future. It's not about preventing crime. It's about preventing gun ownership!

If all guns were eliminated totally, GUN crime would drop to zero. But murder, rape and robbery would not decline at all. In fact it would increase because criminals would know they don't have to fear their victims at all. This has been proven again and again every where it has been done. Without guns, the innocent are left to be slaughtered.

Less guns in the hands of people that should have them, that is. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, as long as the right people have them. There is nothing wrong with people getting shot, as long as the right people get shot. The trouble with these laws is, only the wrong people will have them and the wrong people wind up getting shot. The anti's prefer that scenario, because it gives them more ammo to come after the rest of your guns.

This is too true to be funny. The next time you hear a politician use the Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about Whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, But one advertising agency did a good job of Putting that figure into some perspective in One of it's releases. A. A billion seconds, ago it was 1959. B. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. C. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age. D. A billion days ago, no-one walked on the earth on two feet. E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, At the rate our government Is spending it. While this thought is still fresh in our brain... let's take a look at New Orleans ... It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division. Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) Is presently asking Congressfor 250 BILLION DOLLARS To rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number... >What does it mean? A. Well. If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) You each get $516,528. B.. Or.... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets$1,329,787. C. Or... If you are a family of four.... Your family gets$2,066,012. Washington, D. C. HELLO! Are all your calculators broken?? Building Permit Tax CDL License Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Federal Income Tax (Fed) Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax) IRS Penalties(tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Tax Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax (And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes) STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago..... And our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt.... We had the largest middle class in the world..... And Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What happened? Can you spell: 'POLITICIANS!'

Was the objective just to get the truck off the road and out of the way? If so, mission accomplished. If not, damn they dumb! :

What can one do with a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher, if they don't have a bayonet to attach or a grenade to launch? Why pass a law outlawing a feature of a firearm that is harmless, if not to harass the owner of the firearm? Possession of a shotgun barrel less than 18" in length is good enough to get you 10 years in a Federal prison, even when you do not possess a shotgun that it could be attached to. Even when a shotgun that it would fit may no longer even exist. What does the BATF think you can do with it, beat someone to death with it? If so, why are billy clubs and baseball bats still legal?

Why??

Here's the link to the article and hyperlinks as well http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6904

[table][tr][td] New Study Ranks Freedom In The States [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Friday, June 10, 2011 [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] New York is the least free state overall, and Maryland is least free in terms of personal freedom, according to a new study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The study, Freedom in the 50 States, rated the states according their fiscal policies, regulatory policies, and laws relating to economic and personal freedom. Where each state stands on 30-plus gun laws accounted for 6.67 percent of its total freedom score and accounted for the second highest percentage among 12 categories related to "paternalism," which included economic and personal freedom. Not surprisingly, the states that the study found to be least free overall and least free in terms of personal freedom have what the Brady Campaign considers the best combination of gun laws. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York -- the only states to which the Brady Campaign gave passing grades in its gun control "scorecard" last month -- are among the five least free states overall, and among the 10 least free states in terms of personal freedom in the Mercatus Center study. At the other end of the freedom spectrum, the six most free states overall, and six of the most free states in terms of personal freedom, according to the Mercatus study, got 10 or fewer points in the Brady Campaign's 100-point gun control grading system. [/td][/tr][/table]

Here's a good link to the Federal uniform gun law issue, and why it is also a joke. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6905

He probably would be......but he's not involved in the fight at all, and is actually avoiding it. He's protecting his image, which is more important to him than the rights of America's gun owners. Though he appears to be manly and macho, he is not willing to take on the fight he knows would ensue if he were to jump into the gun control debate. Heck, he didn't even respond to Rosie's maniacal rant against guns when he had the chance. It takes a real patriot, willing to risk, and even lose, everything, to stand up to tyranny and oppression, even when he knows it is the right thing to do. I like Selleck, but I don't think he has the guts for it.

I repeat: People who once believed the Earth was the center of the universe and flat as a plate, accused those who challenged their thinking of being lunatics and nut jobs. Guess who turned out to be more informed?

Gun owners and hunters on the other side of the "black gun" issue don't seem to realize they are siding with the anti gunners and would obviously like to see them banned to enhance their own self image. That's blatant encroachment on American rights and very near sighted. Mechanically there is no difference between an AR and your Remington 750. Do you think if "black guns" were banned that is where the anti gunners would stop? When people say they are against ownership of any type of military weapon, and cite examples like nukes, tanks, rockets grenades and machine guns, if they are allowed to extrapolate far enough, they will eventually be reaching into the average Joe's gun cabinet and deciding certain legally owned rifles and shotguns have to be banned as well. Those are the true colors of those that are willing to accept encroachment. A reach into your freedoms much farther than they want you to believe. Perception on the issue has no relevance at all. This is a land that is run by the rule of law. What is needed is a SCOTUS ruling on the issue to settle it once and for all. Without that, we will never see then end of the gun ban agenda.

Charlton Heston was good. They tried to make him out to be a nut too. I give Nugent credit for putting himself out there and he can be as wild as he wants because he's got nothing to lose. Anyone who takes the job is going to be attacked as lunatic anyway, and not just by the anti's, but by gun owners as well. Maybe that's why without Nugent we currently have nothing. And when he gets tired of the ingratitude of gun owners and hunters who take offense at his style, we will have nothing at all. If you don't like Nugent and you don't like the NRA, who do you want to speak for us? Sounds like some would prefer nobody at all instead. If I'm wrong here, give me a name of someone you think is doing a good job of effectively speaking for us.

Anybody want to suggest someone else to speak for hunters and gun owners? Or are we saying we have noboby better, but we won't take Nugent either? If so, we are accepting defeat, no?

Doc, unless you have a name to go along with the person you wish was speaking for us, I don't think such a person exists. Sure there may be some out there who speak in round, pear shaped tones and can charm the average listener. But someone who knows the 2nd Amendmend, gun laws and politics as well as Nugent? I don't think you can give me a name.

At one time in the history of the world, the majority of people thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Even after that, the majority of the people on this planet thought it was flat. So much for the majority being smarter or right. So majority is no proof of gun owners being smarter than better informed NRA members. P.S. The majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last election too. Once again, how informed is the majority in this country?

On the contrary, it is the opinion of people that are willing to give up the rights of gun owners in America, that are a threat to me and every other gun owner in this country. I just have a low tolerance for that type of thinking. I can not see giving that opinion any respect either.

When the man starts debating gun control and hunting issues, he knows his facts, speaks very intelligently and never loses a debate. He has his own radio programs, is an NRA board member, and highly respected among the military, law enforcement, hunting and firearm communities. I would choose him to defend any hunting or gun related issue over most other hunting and gun writers in America today, who have a tendency to be apologetic to the anti's when there is absolutely noting for gun owners or hunters to apologize for. Ted is adamantly of the same opinion and should be respected for it. I love when hunters and gun owners criticize the man, but never cite examples of specific reasons why they think he is not helping us. Sounds to me like slander from the left simply being regurgitated by the milquetoast among us who don't have the guts to be as assertive as Ted is.

And let's not forget the NRA also happens to be the largest advocate for Hunter's Rights in America as well. It pays to be a member if you are a hunter, even if you don't care about gun ownership rights. But the two are very much connected. If the anti hunters ever get hunting banned in this country, your gun rights will be looked upon as outdated, as many anti gunners think the only reason you still have them is so you can go hunting. That's why they like to push the idea of "Sporting Purposes" when trying to ban certain guns, be they shotgun, rifle or handgun. The folks that want to control you and your guns are very wll organized and determined. Unless we are the same, we are going to lose this fight. That's all this so called "lunatic" has to say about that.

I agree. If they don't belong to the NRA they are either cheap, gullible, naive or just too self absorbed to see what is happening to their rights in this country. And that isn't just rights affecting ownership of guns, it's all of their rights as well. To accept many of the gun laws forced upon good citizens of this country, is to accept encroachment on your rights. Why would anyone give up some of their rights? Because they are under the mistaken assumption that by doing so the country will be safer and gun owners will be attacked less. Well, it is quite simple to see that none of these gun laws have ever done anything to make America safer, nor stop further encroachment on gun ownership. Each gun law that is sucessfully passed simply emboldens the anti's to start working on the next gun law. As far as objective, unbiased factual sources go, it seems some of you wouldn't know one if it bit you. If it doesn't conform to your biased opinion on gun control, you reject it as right wing and biased. There is no hope of changing that type of mentality, and living with your head in the sand will prove to be very expensive in the future. I don't think the term "bully" is called for either. I guess you considered your parents to be bullies as well, when they tried to keep you from doing someting stupid and dangerous as a child. I post on many other hunting and gun sites that cover the entire country. I only get this type of push back from NY residents on this site. The Liberal mentality is more pervasive than I thought, and certainly deep seated in the NYC suburbs and surrounding areas of this state. To see gun owners accepting that mentality is annoying to me. They should know better than anyone else. If you are a gun owner that wants to give up your rights in the hope of appeasing your enemies, you just happen to be dead wrong in my opinion. None of the posts I've put up that would show you the facts have even been addressed. You ignore them every time you respond. "More Guns, Less Crime" is not an NRA book. I dare anyone to challenge it here on this site. Until you read it and prove it wrong, in my opinion, you are too stubborn to bother with. The NRA is not a fringe group either. Gun owners that speak badly of them are ungrateful, uneducated on gun issues and uninformed about politics. Therefore I will continue to choose my gun and hunting associates from among the intelligent and informed, and shun those folks who I determine to be naive, as well as a liability to the gun rights of all Americans. And you guys should feel free to avoid the likes of me as well. We won't miss your company, I assure you. That's called freedom. Is this a great country or what?

If somone posts erroneous information as fact and then gets upset when they are proven wrong, they should check their facts. No gun owner expects all gun owners to think like they do, but they should be able to expect them to be on the side of the 2nd Amendment, self defense and the right of every law abiding individual to own a gun, without unjust and oppressive regulation from the government. If one is against such gun ownership, they either have an unwarranted fear of guns in general, or do not understand the role guns play in the hands of responsible American citizens. And through the right of American freedom of association, any gun owner can choose not to associate with anyone, for any reason. Feel free to re-post any of my past posts as "proof" to the contrary. Read the post above from Elmer J. Fudd. It is a very good post and those are the facts. If after studying that post one still feels the same, they are not open minded and are pursuing an agenda against the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens. When new gun laws have no benefit to society and will not reduce crime, on the contrary, will increase crime, they should not be supported, no matter how much common sense one falsely believes they have. The issue is very clear when looked at logically. One side trusts citizens until they prove they are not trustworthy. The other side does not trust them, no matter how trustworthy they prove themslves to be. One side is for freedom, the other is for selective dictatorship. Read the above post from Elmer J.Fudd and try to argue with those facts. It is an excellent post and should put the whole debate to rest once and for all.

Just as I thought, Steve asks me to look up the FBI figures in a prior post, and when I do, he loses his cool and calls me names. Time to up your medication steve. Don't you realize disarming law abiding, productive citizens simply amounts to removing their right to self defense? What's wrong with responsible law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves with a gun after they have done everything the government, the anti's, and the analytically challenged gun owners have asked them to do, in order to be able to carry a gun? I trust my fellow Americans until they prove they can not be trusted. What you seem to prefer is tyranny. You may not realize it, but that's what it is. Why do I carry a firearm? Because a cop is too heavy, and when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. Your pompous, self righteous, arrogance is very harmful to the rights of law abiding gun owners and American freedom in general. But with the anger issue you obviously have, I can see why you don't think most people should be able to carry a gun. Trouble is, your ego believes most people are like you. Thankfully, we're not, lest America be a police state by now. steve863 Hero Member http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/star.gif[/img]http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/star.gif[/img]http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/star.gif[/img]http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/star.gif[/img]http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/star.gif[/img] Posts: 970 NY Hunter http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/icons/profile_sm.gif[/img] http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/im_off.gif[/img] Re: Worlds Largest Army! « Reply #42 on: May 05, 2011, 08:54:54 am » Quote Quote from: Mr VJP on May 04, 2011, 06:15:54 pm <blockquote> They claim these laws save lives but can't explain why the states with the most "common sense" gun laws have the highest gun crime rates. [img alt=:]http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/rolleyes.gif[/img] </blockquote> This is actually not true. I will let you look it up for yourself but even last year, states like Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arizona topped the list according to FBI figures as far as crime was concerned and none of these states have restrictive gun laws.

I guess steve863 has decided not to reply to this post, which I put up specifically for his information. Restrictive gun laws will cause violent crime rates like murder and rape to go up. It is a fact.