Gun Ownership Up & Violent Crime Down per FBI

[Dave]

So if facts are provided from a evidently biased source...and are valid facts, they are discounted as invalid because they could imflame people. It really sounds to me that anything that contradicts your view is discounted. Not disputed or proven wrong but you just have the ability to avoid the opposite view to yours in spite of any facts. That sure sounds like just what you have been complaining about with the guys opposite you views.

You got em with that statement.

Dave

[virgil]

    So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice.

Take a look and see who starts the majority of these posts.  Then, send your mom's advice to VJP.

Seriously, take a look at the sources of everything he posts.  Not a single one of them comes from an objective news source.  They're all from right wing propagandists. 

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Virgil, just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself "left" wing, or a democrat, or are you pro gun, just pointing out that you disagree with the ultra "right"? You can't possibly be all for banning guns if you hunt, right?

[virgil]

So if facts are provided from a evidently biased source...and are valid facts, they are discounted as invalid because they could imflame people. It really sounds to me that anything that contradicts your view is discounted. Not disputed or proven wrong but you just have the ability to avoid the opposite view to yours in spite of any facts. That sure sounds like just what you have been complaining about with the guys opposite you views.

I'm glad that you impressed Dave.  The issue is that many of these 'facts' are actually not facts- they are opinions and misrepresentations of events intended to mislead.  When some takes a fact (such as the unfortunate death of an ATF agent) and implies that the President masterminded the events that lead up to his death- then you are no longer dealing with facts.  You're dealing with someone's implied theory as to what lead to the death.  And so many of you guys are so happy to believe these conspiracy theories because it supports your agenda.  The fact is that the agent was killed- everything else is propaganda; and you guys eat it up.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

    So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice.

Take a look and see who starts the majority of these posts.  Then, send your mom's advice to VJP.

Seriously, take a look at the sources of everything he posts.  Not a single one of them comes from an objective news source.  They're all from right wing propagandists.

I am not supporting any of the postings as valid. I am questioning your assertion. It should not matter what source is quoting a fact. If it is valid...it is....If it is not valid...it isn't. Do you believlethe unemployment numbers form the Govt? The have a vested interest in having them show low and that would qualify as a biased view.

Facts are most often provided to support a position which by definition would make the presenter biased. It is not very often that a person takes the time to fabricate an argument...support it with facts and not have a biased agenda. Facts are just that...facts. If yuo take issue with them and feel differently than the presenter ...contradict those facts and prove them invalid.

[virgil]

  Virgil, just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself "left" wing, or a democrat, or are you pro gun, just pointing out that you disagree with the ultra "right"? You can't possibly be all for banning guns if you hunt, right?    I consider myself neither.  I have liberal stances on some issues and conservative stances on others.  I think that subscribing so strictly to one side or the other is what causes people to become close-minded and unwilling to consider the opposing point of view.  I am absolutely not in favor of banning all guns.  I would be in favor of any sensible gun control legislation that would protect our right to own sporting weapons. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So if facts are provided from a evidently biased source...and are valid facts, they are discounted as invalid because they could imflame people. It really sounds to me that anything that contradicts your view is discounted. Not disputed or proven wrong but you just have the ability to avoid the opposite view to yours in spite of any facts. That sure sounds like just what you have been complaining about with the guys opposite you views.

I'm glad that you impressed Dave.  The issue is that many of these 'facts' are actually not facts- they are opinions and misrepresentations of events intended to mislead.  When some takes a fact (such as the unfortunate death of an ATF agent) and implies that the President masterminded the events that lead up to his death- then you are no longer dealing with facts.  You're dealing with someone's implied theory as to what lead to the death.  And so many of you guys are so happy to believe these conspiracy theories because it supports your agenda.  The fact is that the agent was killed- everything else is propaganda; and you guys eat it up.

what I read was he did die. Fact ...The questioning came up that an investigation was underway into the actions of the ATF. THe questions were raised...did Obama know?...valid question. If he didn't know...Why?. Seems like another valid question since it was an action across internatinal boarders and could have a direct effect on relations with Mexico.

[steve863]

Unless I am wrong ....I don't recall you providing any proof to back up any of your arguments, or contradictions to his.

As I said earlier, something so entirely biased and intentionally inflamatory does not deserve rebuttal and shouldn't be dignified with a response.

So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice.

Dave

Yes, you should tell this to VJP, who was the first here to say (on numerous threads) that if you don't agree with him and the NRA's point of view, you are basically a nothing, who shouldn't be invited to hunt and pretty much be blacklisted from the hunting fraternity.  He was the primary instigator in these feuds here and you boys damned well know it.  He wants to walk around with that chip on his shoulder, he should be prepared for others to try to knock it off.  And knock it off they have, basically with common sense examples of how guns can fall into the wrong hands very easily in this country.  Posting irrelevant statistics that can be skewed either way don't tell the complete story when it comes to gun ownership in this nation.  He even actually admitted that a national gun card would be something he would support.  So whether it was FACT, BS, or whatever else, some of us did get a few things thru his thick skull.  So THAT is why some of us bother to respond, and obviously in this case at least it, it worked.

[Doewhacker]

Guys, thats the other thread thats lost its wheels.

I'm reffering to culver and virgil

[virgil]

Thanks Bill.

Gotta go to a meeting.  Have fun boys.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

  I would be in favor of any sensible gun control legislation that would protect our right to own sporting weapons.

For one who is so "fact" based, using such subjective statements is unsettling and that subjective approach is what these "radical right wing" folks you comment about are against. Sensible in who's mind?.......Sporting weapons....based on who's definition? Yours? I only hunt with bolt actions and single shots? should autos be banned?

You say you do have conservative views ot some topics? what might those be?

[ELMER J. FUDD]

So if facts are provided from a evidently biased source...and are valid facts, they are discounted as invalid because they could imflame people. It really sounds to me that anything that contradicts your view is discounted. Not disputed or proven wrong but you just have the ability to avoid the opposite view to yours in spite of any facts. That sure sounds like just what you have been complaining about with the guys opposite you views.

I'm glad that you impressed Dave.  The issue is that many of these 'facts' are actually not facts- they are opinions and misrepresentations of events intended to mislead.  When some takes a fact (such as the unfortunate death of an ATF agent) and implies that the President masterminded the events that lead up to his death- then you are no longer dealing with facts.  You're dealing with someone's implied theory as to what lead to the death.  And so many of you guys are so happy to believe these conspiracy theories because it supports your agenda.  The fact is that the agent was killed- everything else is propaganda; and you guys eat it up.

It's not that we believe it, we just don't shun it like you do because it doesn't offend us like it offends you. That's all. Do you really think most of us believe these statements? Seems you are taking vj's bait more than we do.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Unless I am wrong ....I don't recall you providing any proof to back up any of your arguments, or contradictions to his.

As I said earlier, something so entirely biased and intentionally inflamatory does not deserve rebuttal and shouldn't be dignified with a response.

So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice.

Dave

Yes, you should tell this to VJP, who was the first here to say (on numerous threads) that if you don't agree with him and the NRA's point of view, you are basically a nothing, who shouldn't be invited to hunt and pretty much be blacklisted from the hunting fraternity.  He was the primary instigator in these feuds here and you boys damned well know it.  He wants to walk around with that chip on his shoulder, he should be prepared for others to try to knock it off.  And knock it off they have, basically with common sense examples of how guns can fall into the wrong hands very easily in this country. Posting irrelevant statistics that can be skewed either way don't tell the complete story when it comes to gun ownership in this nation.  He even actually admitted that a national gun card would be something he would support.  So whether it was FACT, BS, or whatever else, some of us did get a few things thru his thick skull.  So THAT is why some of us bother to respond, and obviously in this case at least it, it worked.

like how to poop rocks easier! 

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Guys, thats the other thread thats lost its wheels.

I'm reffering to culver and virgil

might as well keep it all in one spot.

[steve863]

Unless I am wrong ....I don't recall you providing any proof to back up any of your arguments, or contradictions to his.

As I said earlier, something so entirely biased and intentionally inflamatory does not deserve rebuttal and shouldn't be dignified with a response.

So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice.

Dave

Yes, you should tell this to VJP, who was the first here to say (on numerous threads) that if you don't agree with him and the NRA's point of view, you are basically a nothing, who shouldn't be invited to hunt and pretty much be blacklisted from the hunting fraternity.  He was the primary instigator in these feuds here and you boys damned well know it.  He wants to walk around with that chip on his shoulder, he should be prepared for others to try to knock it off.  And knock it off they have, basically with common sense examples of how guns can fall into the wrong hands very easily in this country. Posting irrelevant statistics that can be skewed either way don't tell the complete story when it comes to gun ownership in this nation.  He even actually admitted that a national gun card would be something he would support.  So whether it was FACT, BS, or whatever else, some of us did get a few things thru his thick skull.  So THAT is why some of us bother to respond, and obviously in this case at least it, it worked.

like how to poop rocks easier! 

Yeah, we know whose side you are on, that surely isn't hard to figure out here.  Why don't you go back to the beginning of who started the political crap on this forum.  For a good many months we may have argued, but it was about AR's, blaze orange, shortening the gun season, etc., not until the BS controversial political posts were posted by YOU know who, that this crap started getting out of control.  He obviously thought that everyone would agree with all the garbage he posted and would be patting him on the back for it.  He figured wrong and thus here we are.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Just trying to make light on the situation. What you and Doe said was funny BTW. Sometimes you strike me as a very negative individual. Almost like VJ with an opposite opinion. Don't you and VJP have a deep rooted history/hatred for one another from a different forum?

[steve863]

I call things the way I see them, so many people see this as being negative, especially those who think all hunters and gun owners should think the same on every subject on a forum such as this. So generally NO, you won't see me passing daisies around to anyone although those who get on my good side consider me a very loyal and honest friend.

And NO, I do not know VJP from any other forum.  I have only posted on one other forum in the past and currently don't post on any other one than this one.

[Mr VJP]

Just to set the record straight......I have not changed my opinion of gun control, government abuse or the status of gun owners who are not NRA members, no matter how much someone misinterprets what I post.

[wztirem]

Just to set the record straight......I have not changed my opinion of gun control, government abuse or the status of gun owners who are not NRA members, no matter how much someone misinterprets what I post.

What you have posted to date does not require interpretation.  ???

[Mr VJP]

You used interpretation, where you meant understanding.

Must be your motto to post without understanding.

[Mr VJP]

OK, this source is about as far left as it gets concerning gun control.  Still think it's all bull?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-31727_162-10391695.html?keyword=Issa

[Mr VJP]

 

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Holds NRA Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Lawsuits Against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois

  Thursday, June 02, 2011

    Fairfax, VA—Today, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals conclusively and forcefully held, without need for oral argument, that the National Rifle Association has the right to recover attorneys’ fees in its lawsuits against the city of Chicago's and the village of Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun bans. The court held that the NRA was a prevailing party in the case of National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.

“This is a Second Amendment victory and a civil rights victory. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment prevailed against those who sought to deny the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago and Oak Park,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The attempt to avoid paying the NRA’s attorneys’ fees was rightly found to be unjust by the Court."

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for all Americans in the historic McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and Oak Park cases, it remanded them for the purpose of issuing an injunction against Chicago and Oak Park's unconstitutional gun ordinances. Before that injunction was issued, however, those ordinances were repealed. The City and the Village then argued that the NRA was not a prevailing party and should not be allowed to recover attorneys’ fees. The District Court, which originally ruled against the NRA, agreed and denied the fee award.

Today’s Seventh Circuit decision overturns that ruling, holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party and is entitled to receive reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The amount to be recovered will be established by the District Court.

“This is a major victory for the NRA. While we are grateful to recover our attorneys’ fees, however, we remain steadfast in our belief that Chicago and Oak Park continue to circumvent the law of the land and deny their law-abiding residents the Second Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution. We will continue to fight those efforts until the Second Amendment is fully respected," concluded Cox.

--NRA—

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

[virgil]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/

This Pulitzer Prize-winning website should qualify as an objective source of information.

[Doc]

Lol .... Now who do we rely on to see if these people have an axe to grind with gun ownership. Anybody know of organizations that rate the raters . My source is better than your source Nyah - nyah. ;D

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil.

So if we assume the conclusions are correct and there is no tie between carry laws and crime rates, wouldn't it make sense to allow it.....at least not try to overturn the Constitution to restrict it?

And as far as the credibility of groups such as the highly regarded Pulitzer.......they must be right on the mark....Nobel awards to must be also...after all they think an aweful lot of BO