Gun Nuts show their Nuttiness (Macomb Daily)

Dan from MI

New member
This appeared in the Macomb Daily. It's frankly, one of the biggest piles of horse manure that I've ever seen outside of Mackinac Island. :barf:

http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/031305/loc_chad col001.shtml

Gun nuts show their nuttiness

PUBLISHED: March 13, 2005

Chad Selweski
Columnist

When the smoke cleared, it seemed that our Second Amendment soldiers had spent the past couple weeks shooting themselves in the foot.
Advertisement


Surely, the gun lovers out there have lost sight of the target when they start defending a person's right to carry rockets and grenades into a school and when they oppose attempts to keep high-powered weapons out of terrorists' hands.

and

The gun lobby doesn't win 'em all, but when you're wielding the political firepower it possesses, close enough is good enough.

After all, the NRA killed the federal law that banned the sale of military-style rapid-fire assault weapons. The NRA has blocked laws requiring locks on all stored weapons. It's because of the NRA-style worship of the Second Amendment that we have a nation where it's legal to buy armor-piercing bullets, cop-killer guns, and pistols advertised with a "fingerprint-proof finish."

We all know that these products are marketed to the criminal element. But the zealots who pray at the right-to-bear-arms altar say no federal restrictions should be allowed for any weapons.

I would suspect that most law-abiding hunters and gun owners don't agree with some of the nuttier items on the NRA agenda. Others might argue that there's a slippery slope -- you allow some limitations on gun rights and it leads to more and more.

What I worry about is this country's unending supply of psychotics. The crazies we see in the news every day are infinitely scarier if they're joining a terrorist cell or arming themselves with weapons that can kill several people with each squeeze of the trigger.

The slippery slope of NRA thinking has led to this icy cold reality:

Those on the terror watch lists are barred from flying on an airplane or boarding a cruise ship but they can buy military-style weapons like an AK-47.

A suspected terrorist that is caught can be incarcerated and tortured for years at Guantanamo -- or worse, in some Middle Eastern hell hole. But only under very limited circumstances can we prevent the al-Qaida suspects who are on the loose from buying guns. Worse yet, we can't let the FBI use the gun-buying database to track these people down. That would violate the privacy rights promised to gun owners.

Only felons, illegal immigrants and the mentally ill can be blocked from making a purchase. And the gun purchase records must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating any paper trail to keep tabs on well-armed Islamic fanatics.

One senator blamed these pro-gun, soft-on-terrorism policies on the "twisted allegiances" between the NRA and the Bush administration.

Put another way, the gun nuts have become the advocates for the nuts, whether those inspired by Allah or those inspired by the devil.

I forgot. My memberships in SAFR (http://www.firearmsalliance.org), and MGO (http://www.mgouc.com) are up, and I need to make another EPL payment to the NRA.........I'll dedicate them to Chad. :D
 
Gun nuts show their nuttiness

The reporter who wrote this article is about" 2 sparkplugs short of a full engine" this article is as Col Sherman T Potter (Harry Morgan on Mash) stated so eloquently: HORSE HOCKEY. :) :)
 
did i miss something?

ok first this guys says "The Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill that would let people carry weapons -- guns, grenades, sawed-off shotguns, rockets, even land mines -- into schools, polling places and nuclear plants."

then says "essentially any weapon not banned by federal law could be carried anywhere"

aren't "grenades, sawed-off shotguns, rockets, even land mines" banned by federal law?

it makes me sick to see people stomping all over the 2nd amendment with impunity, when there are lawsuits all over the place because their other constutionally gaurenteed rights have been violated. you can bet that at even the silghtest infringment any other amendment has everyone and thier brother crying foul. but gun owners have to deal with assultweapons bans, hicap mag bans, etc... how is it that the very same people that put such vigor in defending peoples basic human rights can at the same time be fighting to ban a basic human right.
 
I guess Chad thinks the terrorists are arming up down at my local gunstore instead of Afghanistan or Pakistan or somewhere guns cost about a tenth as much. What an idiot :barf: , sorry if I broke a forum rule, but there you go. :eek:
 
Anybody kow Chads feelings towards aircraft and boxcutters? I say OUTLAW terrorists! Stupidity should be against the law too. I am only using the same logic as Chad.
 
I believe this article originally appeared in the Arizona Daily "RED" Star, an outspoken rag dedicated to insuring pro-gun laws don't get passed. :mad: :barf: The day after the article appeared, there was such a backlash against the passage of that bill that that anti-gun rag actually devoted two full pages from the outraged anti-gun people protesting that law. There was only one letter allowing that the law had merit. In the 26 years I've been reading that rag, I have never seen such an outpouring of rage against a piece of Arizona legislation.
FWIW, I don't think the law said anything about hand grenades, bazookas etc. That was added by the S.O.B. that wrote the article. :mad:
Paul B.
 
People like him are allowed to drive and breed. :eek: :barf: :mad: I didn't kow it was possible with ones head so far up their :):):) (Got to keep it clean for the kiddies)
 
I wrote a letter to the editor of that paper about that column. I asked if I could give a rebuttal to it, and if it would be posted in entirety, if it was completely factual, although definately pro-gun. He replied and said that by rebuttal would be posted in full, as long as it contained no profanity, or personal attacks. He said they respect all viewpoints.

Any of you well versed pros out there want to assist me with a rebuttal?
 
Back
Top