Virginia Tech Consequences?

I am going to buy more 30 round mags for the Ar-15 this weekend. This totaly sickens me. McCarthy is about the lowest skell of a congress critter that exists.
 
Interestingly, liberal ABC news last night showed that 49% of Americans think that how you are brought up and taught had something to do with the shooting and other shootings, and 27% thought the wide availability of guns had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Not that surprising. I think that for a long time, ever since those famous pictures of Whitman holding two rifles as a child came out, the connection was sunk in the media. That said, these polls are just so unscientific. (More importantly, they're strongly biased). Almost not worth mentioning, only reason they would be is to know those who would take away our freedoms are using them for propoganda--no other information can be garnered from them than that.
 
Consequences?

We either draw a line in the sand and fight the emotional crowd with facts and logic... or we give up the fight, concede and proceed like sheep to the nearest shearing facility.

Time heals all wounds. Eventually, probably sooner rather than later... this will fade from the headlines as the reality of the war in Iraq and the newest Brittany Spears drama sets in.

We shouldn't let it fade. Get those e-mails, letters, phone-calls and faxes going. Join your state grass-roots organization. Instead of getting a case of beer, send a few bucks to your favorite flavor of pro-gun rights organization. Request a meeting with any public official. Anything! It's up to us to stop this tragedy from putting even more people at risk. The rest of America will eventually switch to the next news story, but we need to keep this fresh in our minds forever... we have to keep our rights!
 
About HR 1859:
Link worked for a while, now the text on the gov site is down again. Weird.
But as you have it all there, I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting it. Woudl that just be "assault weapon" magazines? Or would it be all magazines (including handgun). I'm inclined to think the former, but I've never been good at reading that sort of law.
 
But as you have it all there, I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting it. Woudl that just be "assault weapon" magazines? Or would it be all magazines (including handgun). I'm inclined to think the former, but I've never been good at reading that sort of law.
Click to expand...

It applies to all magazines, regardless of the weapon type.
 
California's Diane Feinstein has been seen, dancing in the blood of shooting victims, so to speak, re her comments on the "need for sensible gun control"
 
Yet Harry Reid, usually a major screecher along with all the others debating the issue, says now is not the time for new gun control...could it be that the dem leadership is recognizing the silliness of it all?

WildhasmoretosaybutcantrightnowAlaska
 
Yet Harry Reid, usually a major screecher along with all the others debating the issue, says now is not the time for new gun control...could it be that the dem leadership is recognizing the silliness of it all?
Click to expand...

It was shoved down their throats in 1994, they should be getting it now.
 
If you read all of the online political news, you'd be hearing that the Democrats are very wary of gun control since the issue hasn't done well for them in the past. And with all this international condemnation of America's affinity for firearms, we may have another "dear limey *******s" backlash against others telling us how to run our country. Hey, if others aren't fond of us telling them what to do, why should we like it when they tell us what to do?
 
What it means is exactly what he said, *NOW* is not the time. After a victory in '08 and a consolidation of power, *THEN* will be the time. The only thing the Dems have recognized is that they can't trot out their favorite pet agendas whenever they want. They have to actually put some effort into it before they can ignore everything they have said in the past, the will of the people as well, and do whatever they want.
 
I have seen the expected outcries from the usual suspects, Brady, McCarthy and others, but am not seeing the ground swell support here. THe ABC poll is overwhelmingly against more gun control... much to ABC's shock. I have seen people, mostly on Fox News, talk about the ability to defend oneself.

Add in that the Dems have been badly beaten up by supporting Gun Control and more than a few of the new members are not in line with the party leadership on the issue.

Don't give up and let the left run away with this incident but at the same time they do not seem to be getting the support they wanted.
 
good discussions....i just don't think the climate is right for AWBII right now, but to keep that the case we must intelligently communicate the FACTS to our friends and neighbors.

Guns aren't dangerous, but they're spooky around uninformed masses.
 
2nd, had you until
the will of the people as well
Click to expand...

Except that currently more than 56% of the population supports tougher laws controlling the sale of firearms. Over the past 16 years, there was a high 78% and a low of 51%.


Which will of the people were you referring to, if I misinterpreted your statement?
 
Except that currently more than 56% of the population supports tougher laws controlling the sale of firearms. Over the past 16 years, there was a high 78% and a low of 51%.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the survey that produced these statistics. The outcome of the survey is highly influenced by how, when and where the survey is conducted as well as how the questions are worded.
 
Yet Harry Reid, usually a major screecher along with all the others debating the issue, says now is not the time for new gun control...could it be that the dem leadership is recognizing the silliness of it all?
Click to expand...

I hear Nancy is keeping a low profile also. That McCarthy lady in Congress from NY is screeching but she is always talking about it. I wonder if Hillary is sweating.

I dont think the Dems wanted a gun control battle till after 2008 and its looks like they are not trying to start it. The NRA has made a wise decision by saying no comment till all the facts are in.

The debate isnt really about gun control. The debate is about the basic human right of self defense that our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment. We have recently had a court ruling that the rights of bearing arms is a indivudual right.

Our founding fathers beleived that self defense is a god given right for individuals. The state is under no obligation to provide protection for individuals. Im not the sharpest stick in the bunch and reading between the lines if the state has no duty to protect individuals that probably means that self defense begins at home.

The argument should be that if the state has no legal duty to defend me then they should not restrict me from being able to provide for my defense. Since the Second Amendment is about the right to own a firearm and the reason for owning a firearm being a right I should be able to defend myself without any prohibiteve restrictions that would deny me the right of self defense.

My jaw dropped when I read the article about legislators in VA not taking any action on a bill to allow CHL holders to tkae thier pistol with them on campus.Hopefully some legislators and the VT spokesman are sweating bullets about what thye said.

The sad part is that the families have no legal recourse against VT if VT is considered a state entity by the courts. We will have thirty one people and families that have no recourse against the state for not being able to make the choice of being able to defend ones self by having a permit and being allowed to carry that gun on campus.

Sad day for America all around.
 
The sad part is that the families have no legal recourse against VT if VT is considered a state entity by the courts. We will have thirty one people and families that have no recourse against the state for not being able to make the choice of being able to defend ones self by having a permit and being allowed to carry that gun on campus.
Click to expand...

Gee that would be like suing gun manufacturers ;)....

WildnoteverythinginlifeisactionableAlaska
 
I also wish there could be a good way of quantifying the "will" of the masses. I think that the majority of Americans, if asked, would lightly be for more Gun Control, merely because they are uninformed, and not shooters. However, I think (know) there is a sizable minority of Americans who feel very strongly against Gun Control.

If you imagine numbers as breadth of people (number of people) and strength of feeling as depth, then who has the greater area? I think people who are against gun control. If the "will of the people" means the complete area of the people's will, how many people think what weighted by how strongly they feel it, then I think the firearm community wins hands down. I further think that is our strength, that many are one-issue voters, and can thus swing the election, where others are concerned enough about tax relief, don't care about guns much either way, and vote for guns along with tax relief.

Maybe that's just my take though. To me, doesn't matter what the majority wants or says, it matters what is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top