steve863

Maybe some should ponder on why associating oneself with the NRA almost guarantees someone the "lunatic" and "nutjob" label? If that is the opinion of even a good many gun owners, than there just may be some truth to it. As with any stereotype, there is usually a good deal of truth that surrounds it.

I agree with that, too. It's the people who are on the fence that we need to think about. And NO way in h*e*l*l is Nugent swaying any of those people to the pro-hunting or pro-gun side. You are right, the spokesman don't exactly need to be a celebrity, but I don't know who else might have enough clout on a national stage? Unless it's a person with some sort of name recognition, I doubt they would be given much attention by the media. That's just the way we have let things get in this country, which is unfortunate.

The reason we don't have other celebrity spokespeople out there is because most don't want to be blacklisted by the generally liberal media and entertainment field. Tom Selleck tried a few years back and then Rosie tried to humiliate him on her show. He doesn't need that kind of crap and thus we really haven't heard much out of him since. Also, I would bet that most celebrities who do support gun rights, aren't exactly fanatics like Nugent is. They don't go around openly carrying AR-15's on stage like that lunatic Nugent has done. They probably don't see problems with some sane gun laws and aren't going to be defending the 2nd amendment in the same context Nugent does. I am sure many of you here wouldn't like to see spokesman like that anyway. You rather see a lunatic like Nugent shooting off his mouth against ALL gun laws instead of someone with some common sense in his head. You will settle for a third or fourth rate spokesman just because he is saying what you want to hear. Many of us others won't stoop down to this level just because he is saying some things we agree with. It's either someone with a level of dignity or no one at all. We don't have to settle for fourth rate, just because no one else is stepping up.

Good, then we agree that there is such a thing as good gun laws. And to weed out the criminals and whackos, the rest of us will of course have to subject ourselves to some sort of background check for how else will anyone know who is the criminal and who isn't. No big deal, and it wouldn't have to take 8 months if we went to some sort of uniform nationwide law. You guys get all fired up over nothing at the mere mention of "gun laws" when NEW gun laws could mean improvements to what we currently have. Keeping our head up our a$$es and not thinking of better ways gets us no where. Pushing for NO laws and to follow the 2nd amendment as if we lived in 1776 will not swing in 2011 or any future year, I am sorry to have to tell you.

If we do away with NICS checks as some here advocate, or any other existing gun laws, what would be the difference between a legally bought gun and one illegally bought? ??? How would it be any different if one buys a gun at a gun shop with no questions asked or on a street corner? When you say 'legal", you are implying there are laws associated with it. If there were NO gun laws, there could be NO distinction to what is legal and what isn't, and in that case there would be NO difference buying one from a gun dealer or some slime bucket on a street corner. Just an FYI for you fellas who hate ALL gun laws, yet use the same worn out tune that "criminals don't buy guns legally". Well do they? As laws currently stand, in most cases they probably don't buy them legally. But it surely IS a good thing that the distinction could be made to what is legal and what isn't. If you guys had it your way, and started scrapping all gun laws, there could be NO distinction made at all. Glad that you agree that laws pertaining to guns are a good thing after all! LOL

If we do away with NICS checks as some here advocate, or any other existing gun laws, what would be the difference between a legally bought gun and one illegally bought???? How would it be any different if one buys a gun at a gun shop with no questions asked or on a street corner? When you say 'legal", you are implying there are laws associated with it. If there were NO gun laws, there could be NO distinction to what is legal and what isn't, and in that case there would be NO difference buying one from a gun dealer or some slime bucket on a street corner. Just an FYI for you fellas who hate ALL gun laws, yet use the same worn out tune that "criminals don't buy guns legally".

I don't have respect?? Hahahaha Please go back to the beginning of this thread and tell me who was the guy called out by the person starting this thread? I had NO intentions of wasting my time with him or any of you on this topic, but he obviously had the desire to drag me thru the mud here for he thinks his "facts" are so irrefutable. I ask you guys some simple questions and you do your damndest to not address them. If you guys just regurgitate what the NRA tells you and can't have an opinion of your own, then people surely won't think highly of your intelligence.

Sorry that you are first discovering this, but there are more of us out there than you obviously realized. Some are reluctant to let their opinions known about this, especially on a forum such as this, while I surely am not. I will say it again, and you guys can do the math if you are capable. If only 4 million are NRA members out of 70 million gun owners out there, you can scratch your own heads as to why they only have less than 6% of gun owners as members. Of course in your own minds you are the defenders of freedom while 66 million other gun owners and the rest of non-gun owners in this country are all left-wing communists. Whichever way you slice it guys, you are obviously outnumbered, even amongst your fellow gun owners! LOL That is a ridiculous comment to make. It's like saying that if you don't go to church you don't believe in God. You are assuming that the gun owners and hunters who are not NRA members are against the NRA. They may very will agree with the NRA but just don't pay to do it.Dave Actually if you do believe in God, why wouldn't you go to church? At least a good percentage of the time if not every Sunday. There are plenty of churches out there of all denominations that should fill anyones bill who claims to believe in a God. Once again you boys are twisting things the ways you THINK people should think. I have yet to hear any of you address the reasons for why you think 66 million gun owners choose not to join the NRA? Saying that the 4 million are the savers of freedom while not addressing the other 66 million gun owners reasons for not joining is BS in it's purest form. The best you guys can do is call them cheap and not wanting to pay dues. Anyone with half a brain can figure that there's got to be more reasons than that when people pay more for their freakin cell phones per month than a 1 years membership to the NRA would cost. Of course you guys are far from rational thinkers, so I won't be holding my breath for honest and straightforward reasons directly out of your own mouths.

Sorry that you are first discovering this, but there are more of us out there than you obviously realized. Some are reluctant to let their opinions known about this, especially on a forum such as this, while I surely am not. I will say it again, and you guys can do the math if you are capable. If only 4 million are NRA members out of 70 million gun owners out there, you can scratch your own heads as to why they only have less than 6% of gun owners as members. Of course in your own minds you are the defenders of freedom while 66 million other gun owners and the rest of non-gun owners in this country are all left-wing communists. Whichever way you slice it guys, you are obviously outnumbered, even amongst your fellow gun owners! LOL

You do realize that you may have offended some people with this comment? LOL

What you had to go thru on LI is not what the vast majority of the rest of the nation had to go thru in getting a legally purchased handgun. And many guns from the other laxed law places end up in crimes everywhere. What is needed is uniformity. It shouldn't have to take 8 months to get a pistol, but it shouldn't be with little to NO questions asked neither. There lies to brunt of the problem.

Dave, I surely never said that there would be no more gun crime even with the most stringent of regulations. Sure people die in auto accidents, but do we not want to license or test new drivers at all? Would that help the situation any? Sure people die due to medical mistakes, but do we not want to educate, test and license doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners? Would that help the situation? In the case of guns any idiot can buy a gun and he don't even need to know which end the bullet comes out of. I at least want to know that the purchaser of the gun is not someone who has a criminal past thus NICS checks are a good thing. Your comparing cars and medical mistakes holds little water actually in the discussion of guns. Cars were made for transportation purposes, doctors and nurses are there primarily to treat sick people. What were guns originally developed for? Please don't tell me that killing something wasn't one of the main reasons for it's development. That is the difference here.

Just as I said before, if you guys have problems with the NICS checks system you pretty much can't handle any gun law and are just fine with anyone walking into a gun shop and going home with one whether they are up to no good or not. All I can tell you fellas, is keep dreaming, because we are NOT going back to that any time soon. Whether the crime rate is actually dropping or not means very little since there are still plenty of murders and most are committed with guns. Just because you are telling society that you should be trusted with a gun means nothing to the majority of people who can easily accept some measure of assurance in the name of public safety. Our gun crime rates are astronomical in comparison to any civilized nation, and it would be pretty silly to believe that the easy availability of guns has nothing to do with it. The NRA can spin numbers any way they want, but this fact needs to be kept in mind in my opinion.

So do you think the NICS checks should be scrapped because some don't want to be on any government lists and in your opinion it does nothing to reduce crime?

I am not calling him a genius for creating Facebook alone. This guy had a pretty outstanding academic record from early childhood if you read a bit about him. Knows a bunch of languages and even won academic awards in many different subjects. Someone like him has a way better chance getting the non-hunting public to take notice of the sport over the current camo clad talking heads in the hunting world in my opinion.

In your prior post you state that you don't expect all gun owners to think alike and now you're posting another essay saying that it's either your way or the highway for those who don't agree with you! LOL Yeah, this forum ain't like the rest which is a good thing. If you get more good ole boys agreeing with you in Mississippi than you do here, maybe you should stick to that forum. It is pretty obvious that NO opinion other than one on the far right is acceptable to you. You have made that perfectly clear time and time again. You have even used Barry Goldwater's quote "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" a few times here. Which tells us what? That you are also and extremist, thus some of us have come to the conclusions about you that we have.

Zuckerberg also mentioned that he is thinking about going hunting. Just think for a minute what a plug for the hunting way of life this would be?? For those who think Nugent is the greatest thing since sliced bread for the hunting cause, he is a nobody compared to the clout Zuckerberg has on this planet at this point in time. Zuckerberg is a borderline genius, billionaire, and has been generous to others with all that money. To have him on the hunting side would bring us into a whole new league of respectability in my opinion.

Talk about erroneous information, VJP. Why don't we go back to your original post in this thread? I know you are doing your damndest to avoid it. The article quotes FBI figures showing crime rates going down and then it starts implying that this is due to more firearms being bought by the public. This was a nice spin by the NRA making gullible people think that the FBI is somehow acknowledging this and promoting private gun ownership in reducing crime. I have NEVER seen the FBI ever promote gun ownership in reducing crime, be they under republican or democratic leadership in the White House. As I've said before all sides spin things there own way. Your original post and the link provided by Elmer are just more examples of this. If you want to talk about facts, why don't you tell us why only 3-4 million gun owners are NRA members since up to 70 million people own guns in this country? Are these people just all cheap and don't want to pay the dues, or maybe they don't exactly agree with all the BS the NRA spews?? I would bet it's the latter, which proves that the majority of gun owners out there don't exactly see things the way you think they should.

Oh, don't you worry there, Virgil, I have NO problem handling any of them. I obviously struck a nerve with some of these clowns, since they keep calling out my name! LOL

I have been a critic of people's obsession with Facebook, but I think I now have a whole new respect for Zuckerberg. I am glad he is being vocal about such a thing. I wonder how his Facebook fans will swallow this news? LOL

Sorry guys this was meant for SteveDave Why do you perceive me as being angry?? Some of you fellas are the ones who are having a hard time accepting that there are many gun owners out there who understand that some gun laws are needed and make sense. VJP being the main culprit since he is singling me out at the beginning of this thread. I am only making the point that ALL gun owners don't think exactly the way the NRA does. He has a coronary whenever anyone takes issue with anything he posts and thinks that ALL gun owners should think like him. You should try reading his posts from the past for proof. If he or anyone else here doesn't like some of us posting OUR opinions, they could as I said before, suck on a lemon for all I care. That is not being angry, only being completely honest. I won't agree with him or anyone, just because it's how gun owners should be thinking according to people like them.

What am I confused about? If YOU think the right to carry is what is bringing down crime rates, are you at the same time saying that NICS checks have not been a factor for the better?? Simple question here. The problem here is that some of you guys can't see things from other peoples perspectives. You only swallow what the NRA tells you and can't see the legitimate concerns that every day people may have about the ease of which guns can be had in this country. Not like there has ever been a shortage of gun violence in this country, and NO one will convince me that the number of guns out there hasn't had a direct effect on this. Look, I own a cabinet full of guns. I enjoyed hunting and shooting with them over the years. I don't need the NRA or other fanatics telling me what to believe. I call it the way I see it, and I can tell you that a good many gun laws are their for a good reason. Many gun fanatics would love it if ALL gun laws were scrapped. I for one say BS to that and won't shy away from saying it just because this is a hunting forum where some people will accuse me of being an anti. They can suck on a lemon for all I care.

Yeah, and instant background checks for firearms purchases became law in the early 90's also. This common sense law at least keeps some undesirables from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers. I will never accept the claim that allowing people to carry lowers crime, while a common sense law like this didn't have a positive effect also. More people don't carry in comparison to those that do. I highly doubt the ones who carry are the ones scaring criminals away from a life of crime. If anyone is scared it is the ones who are carrying.

Case closed to where you pasted your article from. LOL http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6832

VJP, you are so full of it, it isn't even funny! I don't know why I waste my time with a lunatic like you. And you are the one in needs of meds, and not me. I never have taken medication in my life. Tough crap, if you don't like being called names. Don't call out my name when starting a thread and maybe you won't be called names. Why don't you tell us where you cut and pasted your first post from? Does the FBI make the distinction that the lower crime rate is due to more firearm ownership or does some gun advocate in an NRA publication? I would bet it's the latter. I never made the claim overall crime hasn't been going down in the nation. The crime in NYC has been going down for years, and guess what? It has RESTRICTIVE gun laws. The majority of guns used in crimes there come from places that have laxed gun laws. You carry a gun because you are afraid of your own shadow, boogey men, and have the need to make up for other thing you may lack. I don't have such issues and don't feel that I need to be armed. Enough said.