www.goodbyeguns.org

T

twoblink

New member
I'm doing some "anti-gun" research. One of the sites was www.goodbyguns.org. This is the following email I sent to them, anybody can comment. Visit their site, send them email, but please, don't send them hate mail... Hey need to be educated and reasoned with, not yelled at.

Albert

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm all for gun control, but your website doesn't address the question that gets begged all the time...

Legislation applies to only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. These laws you purpose do not apply to criminals (by the shear definition of "criminal", one who does not obey laws) So doesn't this mean that only criminals will be armed and law abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves?

Even people like Rosie have armed body guards, because she knows that she wants self protection, and the cops can't be everywhere all the time.

I'm all for gun control but thus far, I have not seen any refutation of the stats of Australia after their gun control. Just as predicted, crime went up, not down because only criminals have guns. How (under your proposal) do you attempt to solve the increase of violent crime because criminals will know that all law abiding citizens will be unarmed?

Yours,
Albert
 
twoblink--

the period after the ".org" needs to be removed from the link you posted... aw, heck.. here it is: http://www.goodbyguns.org

Just tryin' to help..

I sent them a similar e-mail also, except for the part about being "all for gun control" I consider myself "all against gun control"


-R


[This message has been edited by robear (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
My e-mail to them:

<Hello,

I am just wondering why you think a total ban on guns will be effective? We have similar bans on illegal drugs (so far extremely ineffective) and once had a prohibition on alcohol (also extremely ineffective). The only way your solution could possibly work is if every gun in the WORLD is destroyed, all the technology needed to build one is destroyed, and all the brainpower needed to create that technology is destroyed. Obviously that is impossible. As a result, all you would be doing is raising the black market price for illegal guns, thereby providing a strong incentive for illegal gun importation to flourish. Criminals will get guns no matter how "total" the ban. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. The demand will always be there (criminals) and the supply will always be there (the rest of the world). All you are doing with this idea is proposing the disarming of those of us who would like to have a fighting chance to defend ourselves against these criminals.

Your idea is silly, unrealistic, and would only create a market that cannot be controlled. Anyone who thinks the so-called "war on drugs" has been effective has had their head in the sand and does not understand reality or economics.

I don't want to be defenseless in today's society and I feel sorry for those people who live in the type of dreamworld you seem to think is possible. Your efforts would be better rewarded by concentrating on the real root of our nation's problems: the breakdown of the American family, the selfishness and lack of responsibility of too many parents, and the failure of our current administration to prosecute criminals. Oh, and did I mention that your proposal is unconstitutional? I know that is just a minor detail to those that advocate your position, but to at least 80 million Americans that document means a lot.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Gun owner, law-abiding citizen, NRA member, GOA member, voter.>
 
Well, I just wrote my 2 cents worth to this organization that wants to help destroy my constitutional right to own a gun. I can't stand these anti-gun people any more. Blaming every child's death on guns, but yet more kids die drowning in swimming pools than being killed by a gun. Now the media is getting on the anti-bandwagon, Whoppi, and Rosie trying to help this cause. I'm sick, and tired of it. We don't need any more laws, if Klinton would enforce the laws now, then there would be a drop in gun crime. But he wants to look good so he has to bring out new ones. Well I've rambled on so I'll stop, I think that every member of TFL should e-mail this org. and tell them what the people think.

------------------
AK-47, When you absolutely have to kill every mother&*$#er in the room...accept no substitutes.

Browning Hi-Power, What went wrong during 65 years?
 
Why bother writing to them? They obviously don't care about your view, and will think you're a crazed loon. Do you really think they'll keep reading after they realize that you're pro-gun?
 
Formerly, I used logic and what I considered to be good arguments when I talked to an "anti". It never worked, not even once. So, I've fallen back to my original rule. "NEVER ARGUE WITH CRAZY PEOPLE".
The people who I talked to wanted nothing short of a total ban. There was no middle ground, none.
So, up theirs.

Getting a little angry,
Will

------------------
Mendacity is the system we live in.

[This message has been edited by WLM (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
I first thought I would not bother to e-mail them, but when I read the first few lines on thier site I got so angry I just had to. Here is what I wrote.

Having a total ban on all guns will not stop any violence. It might even increase it. Criminals will be the only ones with guns. Law abiding citizens wont be able to keep their family safe from a criminal. In your plan, there is no place that you tell how to stop a criminal from having a gun, or getting a gun. As I said before, a father/mother protecting his/her children or self if left nowhere when the criminal has the gun in that situation. I don't think there is any reason why there is a need to discus any new gun laws if they cant make the ones we have already work. The only people effected by most guns laws is the law abiding citizen. If you want to stop crime, try to ban criminals. Don't ban guns, they don't kill, or hurt anyone. I think a total ban on criminals will have a much better effect then a ban on guns.

What about the Constitution? I think instead of taking out the second Amendment, why not loose the first one? Then Organizations like yours wouldn't exist.

See the point I am trying to make? Thats how unrealistic, unconstitutional, and poorly planned your "plan" is?
--------------------------------------------
I was just so mad when I read what they are trying to do. Man, I was angry. Their loss, if they succeed, they wont, but if they did, I would laugh when a perp breaks in with a 12 guage and they have a bat, bat they wish they could still buy a gun then.


[This message has been edited by MrBlonde (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
I don't bother writing those brainwashed-by-the-communistnazis bliss ninnies anymore. Afterall, having tried to reason with them for 36 years, and determining that it is about as successful as arguing with a stump out in the field, I don't waste my time.

What I do ask them when speaking personally with them, are two questions.

1. How many millions of us gun owning "vermin" do you intend to have your Gestapo/KGB exterminate, in order to take our guns??

2. Are YOU willing to "walk point" when YOU send your SS/Spetnaz thugs to my house?

Geenerally kinda makes 'em speechless, plus, makes it more personal, than when they abstractly think that we'll all just turn in our guns to the King. FWIW.
 
the point is not to reduce ourselves to their level.

Let me clarify what I mean by gun control. Don't get me wrong, I love shooting as a sport, and would be sad if I couldn't. But I think the main arguement lies in guns as defense.

I think it's New Zealand (I might be wrong, so don't quote me) but they have a handgun ban. You are (however) allowed to own shotguns and rifles. This is their thinking, home defense? shotgun. Hunting? rifles. Handguns? Hunting humans... I would be sad if I can't have a handgun, but I can take those arguments with a grain of salt. Those would be acceptable to me. But what these anti's want, is a complete ban. What's so ironic is they are going to be the ones that hire armed body guards (Rosie, you hippo--crit) Senator Diane Finstein when asked why she's for gun control and she herself has a CCW permit said "Well, cops can't be everywhere all the time, so I need a means in which to protect myself." Of course the question there is, isn't that what every american wants for themselves and their family, thus the second amendment?

Albert.
 
I sent "Clark" this E-mail this morning. You can't reason with them, so you might as well make it personal...

Dear Clark,
It's about time somebody had the guts to do what obviously needs to be done done to curb gun violence...confiscate and destroy all privately held firearms. That is sheer brilliance! I see a small problem with paying people fair market value for their guns, however. If such legislation is passed, gun values will increase 10 fold, and all market values will become "Black Market" values. It's really a minor detail though. I think it would be better if you went door to door and exchanged an autographed picture of yourself for every "household" of guns you confiscate. That way people will know who to thank for the massive decrease in crime that is sure to follow, not to mention the sheer thrill of being the one personally responsible for liberating all those people from such evil! You will be a hero to so many people.
Of course, there will always be some diehards, living in remote cabins or holed up in compounds who will refuse to comply. They may even hold you personally responsible, and send bounty hunters after you. (Armed with only "safe" black market guns of course).
There will be certain costs involved in "cleansing" society of these people who don't know what's best for them too. Out of 80,000,000 gun owners, I'm sure at least 5% will comply, which is the estimated ratio of compliance in states that have enacted similar laws banning certain types of firearms. That leaves only 75,000,000 or so "wacko's" to contend with, small potatoes (I hope I spelled that right) considering many of these crazies have multiple weapons, large amounts of ammo, and will undoubtedly be very angry about the "Imagined" loss of their civil rights.
If a civil war erupts over such legislation (distinct possibility) it will be bloody. The military, despite the Clinton Administrations efforts, still remains sympathetic to the civil rights of Americans. This is evidenced by the majority of military personnel owning private firearms to compliment their duty weapons. All the Federal gun confiscating agencies will empty out when faced with the task of becoming targets to "wackos" fighting for their "Liberties", who will now have nothing left to lose. There is always NATO "Peacekeepers", who I'm sure would love to participate in disarming America. Unfortunately, they may not be too sympathetic to all the other "selective" articles in the Bill of Rights which are still important to Americans, but I think it's worth the risk, don't you?
Anyway Clark, I could go on about what a great thing your doing, and continue to point out certain elements, but I know you've thought it all the way through. After all, nobody would call their organization "Think Radio" if they didn't spend a lot of time looking at every angle of an issue before taking such a bold position on it. Don't get bogged down in the little details. Remember, Adolph Hitler almost made it work for Germany. He became obsessed with "disarming" the Russians and it cost him the war. The mistake he made was that he underestimated their willingness to fight. I know you wouldn't be so stupid....

Regards in defenseless unarmed bliss,
SM
 
The topic of gun control makes me sick, unless your definition of gun control is being able to hit your target.
 
No one at such a site cares what any of you or I think. Reason will not prevail with the anti-gun forces no matter how reasonable you think your arguments are. There is no middle ground left. You are either for gun ownership or against gun ownership. Dividing guns among classes; handguns, hunting, assault weapons, etc, is exactly the divide and conquer strategy the anti's are hoping for. When the million calorie march occured they were not shouting "no more assault weapons" or "no more handguns". Nope they were shouting "no more guns"! We need to fight (in what ever fashion is neccessary to win) these people for our rights not reason with them.
 
Thanks Mike From Iowa,
I'm glad you enjoyed the letter. Funny to say I caught myself checking my E-mail to see if I would hear back from them. Imagine that! Oh well, it's back to the reality that these morons are not convicted in their beliefs, and just blow in the wind. Easy to defeat once actually confronted. This is why they will always avoid confrontation, preferring to yell in front of a group of like-minded idiots, or a nice safe television camera. Typical cowards…and so predictable!
Best Regards,
SM


------------------
"When evil wins in the world, it is only by the default of the good. That is why one man of reason and moral stature is more important actually and potentially, than a million fools". -Ayn Rand
 
I think it's the sig of someone on this board that says "Want Gun Control? Use both hands!"

Great quote! As Rosie put it, the second amendment was designed for Patriots defending against the Red Coats. Well, the only thing that has changed is that Red Coats no longer wear red coats, they wear all black 3 piece suits, mirrored sunglasses, a stupid plug in their ear, and drive a tinted Suburban... That does not change the fact that we need to have the right to protect ourselves...

I find that the "anti's" have never addressed the two fundamental issues about gun ownership:

1) Home/Self Defense
2) Sport Shooting

What makes me sick is that the biggest supporter of gun control are women, mothers of all things. Women are by genetics, physically smaller. BUT, a nice 308 in the purse is the best genetic compensation I've ever seen. So there should be more pro gun women, not less! And certainly not more anti gun moms, as they should have a greater instinct to protect their young.

My gf is 5'4" and 120lbs, you really think any robber that comes into my house she's going to be able to handle? All I know is my rifle has a 5.5lbs trigger, and she certainly can pull that...

Albert
 
I may have gone a bit over the top with my relpy, but it felt so right to match his idiocy with a little of my own. Here is what I sent to him.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think this is great. Now we need to go after the press and broadcasters. I remember the fear and trouble stirred by the news reporters in the Detroit and DC riots in the 60's and just think how many people only learned about the problems and riots in LA after the Rodney King issue? My God! We have got to stop all of these inflammatory reporting. Too many people are killed everyday because honest citizens are incited to violence by the irresponsible reporting of issues in the media. We must enact a strict government censorship of all news outlets. No story should be published unless the censors decide it is not going to cause problems. We need happy, unexciting news if we ever expect to have a safe nation.

To this end I firmly believe that the first amendment must be rescinded. If not rescinded then, at least modified to allow only government approved speech and government approved religion. This will not harm anyone who isn't saying bad things or who doesn't worship the correct God. We must make sure that the whole country follows the right path whether they want to or not.

I'd like to spread our good way of life to the whole world someday soon. Will you join me in making all of those pagans, Jews and foreigners follow our CORRECT path? First we MUST censor the media or they will misuse their alleged First Amendment rights to excite the people to stop our righteous crusade.[/quote]

[This message has been edited by Libertarian (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
They haven't gone quite as far as the group that demands the total extermination of everyone who ever owned a gun and his family and descendants. This, they claim is "necessary" to "cleanse our society of the violence gene". It is always nice to learn about people who believe in reason and compromise.

Jim
 
I think a new site should be started at www.good-by-guns.org. It could document all the good that has been brought about by guns in America and society as a whole. :D

I'll design it if someone provides the content. :) It would really be an in-your-face response.

Kiffster

------------------
Sig 229 .40 - When you care enough to shoot the very best!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top