Here you go. I guess we won't ever have to wait until the 22nd.
Jim

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-g...mo_code=1191D-1

After "Fast and Furious" Obama proved he knows nothing of gun control.

Now this makes a lot of sense: "The measures would also strengthen mental health checks and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the Post said. The approach is backed by law enforcement leaders, it said."

Most of the shooters kill themselves. What do they care how stiff the penalty around schools. All that kind of law does is make it safer for the crazed shooter.

To quote a German Police Chief after a shooting incident in Germany a couple of years ago " Politicians are the only people who think they can change reality with words on pieces of paper ".

A bit more from the WP.it looks like they will use the same tactics used to ram obamacare through-strong arm business like WMT,get on AF 1 and do the "campaigner in chief" act,and of course,bring the complicit media in to help. :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/w...346f_print.html

"A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.

“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”
"For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores."

Absolutely nothing about the Proven danger that gun free zones creates or armed guards-LIKE THEIR children and 1/3rd of the others have in schools.
Stiffen penalties-yea,like twoholer posted, that would have done a lot they all kill themselves,how concerned are they with "penalties"?

Ever notice how all these mass killings are in gun free zones ?

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=307553&page=10

John Lott and William Landees did a study in 1999,not the last line in the exert from the article John Fund wrote ;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund



Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
_________________________

We had laws that prohibited bringing guns within 1000 feet of a school. How many of you would become instant felons if you normally innocently drive past schools on the way to hunting, target, or skeet shooting? If there were roadblocks set up near schools on the first day of deer season, how many would get arrested? Once you have a felony conviction, you will never legally be able to own guns and you will be excluded from voting to get rid of the evil politicians who would turn law abiding citizens into criminals. Think about that.

Obama told Professor John Lott at the Univ. of Chicago that he does not believe Americans should be allowed to own guns. Period.

That is Obama's end game. Do you want to play that game or do you want to get involved and call your Congressmen to let them know you won't accept being blamed for the actions of a psycopath?

Psychopath? Psychopath!

How dare you call our Glorious President a "Psychopath" ?!

The truth notwithstanding.

keith, with respect, have you run a campaign? Petitions and telephone calls, you might as spit into the wind. "You won't accept . . " That's warm spit to pols.

Dave K,
Legislators in the U.S.A; including V.P.Biden would be well advised to consult With Canadian Government,for preference with P.M.Stephen Harper,re;the abject failure and excessive cost of the recently cancelled and destroyed Canadian Firearms,long gun, registration and ownership tracking system.The Canadian experience did little or nothing to reduce violent/organised crime.But it did result in the waste of several billion of dollars!
The cost of a similar legislation in the U.S.A would likely require a budget close to that of the Pentagon with little or no reduction in horrific crimes committed by irrational individuals.

Very well said Roy Hebbes!

Thanks, Roy. Really good advice. Biden only has to look over the fence to focus his judgement.

Biden has had this pointed out to him for years "HE DOESN"T CARE" he wants Gun "Elimination" Period.
The only hopes we have are that enough Congressmen stand up against this regime of Obama & Biden. They aren't concerned with the cost.

I really don't think you folks have any idea how much money biden would be willing to borrow or print.

There hasn't been mention of another factor in the defeat of the registry here. Media was all over the cost of the registry as it grew like topsy from projected hundred million or so to billions. It's a stretch to say it became household conversation but no one had difficulty grasping the issue in a hunting country: it was a colossal waste. For all the shooting sports' lobbying and protests, I'd venture that making the registry part of daily conversations with neighbours and friends had as much to do with the outcome as anything.

Money isn't everything. Citizens of our county opposed the provincial government and opposition parties bowing to the business community on where a Trans-Canada Highway bypass would go. All the money, ALL the politicians against them, they won. They filled halls, published cartoons in community newspapers, paid for 10 30-second spots a day on radio stations. No politician can stand up to that because they're not tied to money---they're tied to votes.

Unblushingly, I ran that campaign. Your great poet Whitman said there can't be great poets without great audiences. There can't be leaders without great followers who understand issues. In the example above, citizens put public safety ahead of party loyalties, before selfish business interests. That applies to the United States as it does to Canada. Biden's borrowing and printing can't thwart the will of a determined populace. Hope this helps.

Well, I guess we need you to convince Joe biden that he's wrong, on our behalf. When would you like to start?

Forget Biden. He has a lousy hand. Even if people believe pro wrestling is real and moon landing a fake, it shouldn't be all that difficult to bring around any doubters about registration.

It's heresy to say it but I'm not as much an advocate of the slippery slope re giving in to assault rifles and clips. I don't favour them. This is personal, not to say that an important principle isn't involved.

All the power and stately edifice of the federal government may think it has done something with legislation against assault and clips, and however cosmetic I think that is, it doesn't matter. It's a harder fight.

Registration should be easier to defeat. My thought reflects what I said earlier about the anticipated "balancing" I expected from Washington's intended get 'em this time program. I'd be careful not to dissipate energy and goodwill.

Choose your battles.

C'mon King, in the same post. We gonna register or not. Is it worth doing or not. Sounds like the kerry approach. First will do it, or maybe not, or all gather around the camp fire and sing....

Not sure if you're for or against registration, but why again should a dad have to register grandpa's old duck gun to pass it on to his son.

King,

they are called "magazines" NOT "clips" you sound like you have been listening to lots of Piers Morgan.

As to picking battles,NO thanks.We are NOT giving in to ANYTHING,the problem is not-and there is more then enough proof, the gun/magazine its the lack of security and dangerous "gun free zones".

As to convincing the Left/progressive/Biden side, forget it,any one that by admission is taking advantage of the tragedy in Newtown to further their gun grabbing agenda is not going to "negotiate" anything acceptable to a free people.
YOUR Canadian law's might be ok with you,but not us.How many handguns do you have King,and do you support others rights to own them ? How about semi auto rifles ?With "some" respect, You have NO clue about whats going on here in America and the progressive lefts agenda to disarm us.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

We may as well forget about convincing Biden et.al. We need to convince all the well meaning people that think the trash they are hearing every day is true. We need calm people writing letters to the editors every day, and emailing/tweeting "talking heads" with the truth. Not all will listen, but some will.
Mike

Craig and Dave: I was asked my opinion and I gave it. What you do is what you do. Yes, I have pistols and a full-auto Sten until the grandfather-clause was removed and it was more liability around the house and sold it to another friend. Canadians had a taste of knee-jerk anti-firearms legIslation and turned back registration. What we did could not work in the US on the evidence here. Our experience could be helpful once the US shooting sports fraternity gets its act together, as it did in Canada.

Absolutely. My hat is off to East Alabama. I've lots of friends around Birmingham.

Your may remember Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp from her testimony about losing her parents in Luby's.



here she is owning one of the complicit media the other day.



here is her testimony many years ago

Those to videos says it all!!!! Thanks for posting. They are going to everyone on my email list.

Speaking from an Englishmans point of view, please fight to safeguard your rights. Before 1932 in Britain no gun licences were required apart from a licence from the Post Office which permitted you to carry any firearm anywhere. In Victorian England when anyone who wished could carry a handgun did so, serious crime was not prevelant, the biggest murderer of the age was Jack the Ripper who killed with a knife or scalpal. In 1910 in the Siege of Sidney Street several Anarchists had an armed stand off shooting at least two Police Officers. Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary ordered the army out, but until they arrived, Police Officers were stopping passers-by asking them if they had a firearm, and if so, could they borrow it. In 1932 the Govermnent introduced the first of many Firearms Acts. Initially it was registration of the firearms (Rifles and Pistols) but later the restrictions were gradually increased until you had to be like a Circus Dog Act with dozens of hoops to jump through just to get a Firearms Certificate, In 1961 I got my Firearms Certificate, I was a member of a couple of Pistol Clubs and shot regularly. In 1964 I became a Police Officer and after two years became an authorised Police firearms qualified officer. Shortly after than I was an instructor. Outside the job I was still an enthusiastic shot having taken up Practical Pistol Shooting.

Over the years insideous inroads were made into the ownership of firearms, many not backed by legislation but introduced by Chief Police Officers at a mere whim. In 1997 Handguns were effectively banned and owners were told to hand them in at their local Police Office. The Police knew who had the licenced firearms but not who had the illegally owned handguns. Overnight thousands of shooters who had never fired a round at anything but a paper target lost their firearms with little if any recompence from the authorities. Late 1997 was a great year for anyone living outside of the United Kingdom to buy reloading equipment for next to nothing.

Of course the criminals didn't hand in a single weapon and the Police couldn't do a thing about it because they didn't know which crooks had them. Today the crooks know they are safe carrtying out an armed raid and because the Police are retro-active and they get to the scene too late. Since 1997 handgun crime has risen 400% over the previous figures.

It doesn't take a genious to work out, that if you ban firearms only the crooks will have them. Firearms Legislation has never worked except to the benefit of the Criminal Classes.

Rant over.

Harry

Finally King, you have revealed part of your solution to the problem we face. We should give up semi-autos which have the appearance of full automatic assault rifles, and we should give up "clips". And we should focus our efforts on turning back registration since you think we might be able to win on that one.

Did you have any arbitrary number in mind pertaining to "clip" or magazine capacity, or should we just give up all of them? Should we give up all semi-autos, or do you have a list of guns that look like assault weapons that we should let the grabbers take? Would you include any military style shotguns? And since these remedies have been tried before and failed to achieve the ALLEGED desired result... when it doesn't stop the next massacre... what would you suggest we should give up next?

Thank you Mr. Neville Chaimberlain. We finally have your winning strategy. All we have to do is bend over and get raped and learn to call it consensual.

The grabbers have always worked on incrementalism. They never start with outright bans except where an iron fisted dictatorship is already in place. So you're saying that letting them chip away at us will be OK this time? You're saying that if we give up semi-autos and "clips", that will be the last we hear from Biden and Obama? What do they call repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? I think the answer is Insanity.

I'm sure any of the "anti's" would insist that the evil black machine gun should in the top picture below should not be owned by any private individual:




But wait. The rifle below in the 2nd picture is no different functionally from the "evil black gun" pictured above. They are both in fact Ruger 10/22s probably the most successfull semi-auto 22 sold of all time.



Both of these examples function exactly the same. One pull of the trigger fires one round. The top example has had cosmetic changes only made to it and it now Looks like a minature MG34.
This is the same technique the anti's use all the time to mislead the public.
Jim

Thank you Harry for the support and the great post, very informative read without a doubt........

I hope all our citizens here read and take note as to how fast gun rights can become a "disappearing act" in our great nation as it did in yours.....

Thanks Again,

Cheers,

keith, where did I say give up semi-autos? Where to give up the assaults and Obama and Biden would go away? Evidence, please. I said I don't favour them but I said also that I recognized the principle involved in protecting them. I've said I support the 2nd. Where in god's name do you find defeatism? Measuring where Washington likely to act arbitrarily---capriciously, unrestrained, despotically---and where it would face fierce dissent is prudent in allocating resources. Choose your battles, rarely do warriors win all of them. Canadians are still agitating for improvements.

Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind.

[quote=King Brown]
"Canadians are still agitating for improvements."
Yes, and actively, by with-holding money, among other things.

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind."

Ooh, So,,,so,,,,logical! -Talk nice and the politicians will listen.... B.S.!!!
The NFA tried that in Canada -"Lets wait and see what the Government proposes, then comment on it"
We got what the Government proposed! No changes.

One look at the gun violence committee shows the real intent is to exploit the tragedy in Newtown to further a gun ban agenda that has been in the works ( or "under the radar") for years.
The NRA has done the only thing it could and did show the PROVEN cause of these shootings,Gun Free Zones and no protection-that the elite/complicit media and politicians have for their children.We don't need or want any help from guys like King who will give in to some bans/laws and attack our largest ally with clout.Give it up King we are not buying what your are selling.

Looks at this member of Bidens task force and you can get an idea of their real intent that has nothing to do with protecting children

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...ssacre-n1483006

President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is a member of Vice President Joe Biden's gun control task force, which was created by President Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Nee's son, Joseph Nee, was convicted in 2008 for planning to commit mass murder of students and teachers at Marshfield High School in Massachusetts, similar to that of Columbine in 1999. After spending nine months in prison, Nee's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court

If one tenth of the bilge that has appeared on this thread was directed to Congress, we might have a chance in this fight...

Sadly, people don't like to talk about religion or politics, until their church is on fire or their laws have changed................if they don't write and call their politicians in Washington as requested on the "Simple Request" thread, then we will all lose...........

OK, let's examine what you said. Without directly stating that we should give up semi-autos and "clips", you said, that you don't buy into the "slippery slope" argument re "assault rifles" (which are not really assault rifles as Jim has shown with his pictures worth a thousand words example), and you personally "don't favour them." Then we are given your more winnable choice in the coming battle, "Registration" which "should be easier to defeat." Then we are advised to "Choose your battles."

Now, if those statements are telling us to cling tightly to all of our current rights and to give up nothing, then I and several others here do indeed have a reading comprehension problem. I don't see it that way. If that's what you were saying, you really need to phrase things differently to communicate your real point.

I, and several others, read what you cryptically said, and connected the dots, and came to the same conclusion: We should choose battles we can win, and since the battle to keep assault rifle look-alikes and "clips" is "a harder fight", we should not "dissipate energy" and create ill will given the current state of an "antagonized" "nation in mourning" lest we make the mistake of "unwarranted flaming of public opinion" as the NRA did (in your opinion). All of these words in quotes are yours, some from other posts.

That being said, we should ignore what may be unwinnable and concentrate our energies on what may be winnable... stopping, at least for the time being, any registration schemes. The result would be the "balancing" you spoke of previously, and would satisfy Washington and mitigate their scorched earth "get 'em this time program." The resulting loss of "assault rifles" and "clips" which you personally don't "favour" would not lead to the "slippery slope" scenario where the grabbers would smell blood in the water and come back for more. And more. And more.

We, most of us anyway, don't see it that way. You say you "support the 2nd". So does Obama. So does Biden. We hear those words all the time from those who are all about getting our guns while ignoring the root causes of gun violence. It appears there are vastly different interpretations of those words as well... reading comprehension problems in the opinion of some. To me, to the NRA, to most who frequent this board, supporting the 2nd means leaving it untouched and unblemished by feel good measures that the framers specifically warned against. They foresaw the threats we face today because they remembered the past. They didn't just say it, they expounded upon it and their reasoning is just as valid today as it was over 200 years ago. The tendancies for both good and the evil in the hearts of men are the same now as then. Thirst for power and ambition and greed and corruption by Governments have not been erased by a mere 200 years of man's evolution.

So King, when we connect the dots, and analyze your words, we come to the nearly unanimous conclusion that you would have us give up those things which you personally don't "favour" and fall prey to the kind of incrementalism that has methodically stripped gun owners of their rights in your own country and around the world. When we add certain circumstantial evidence to the case, such as your frequent condescending attitude ("Your message appears as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than an NRA membership.") toward pro-gun rights guys and your willingness to give a pass to the grabbers here, is it any wonder so many of us are questioning your advice, if not your motives? Or do we all have reading comprehension problems? A professional wordsmith ought to have the ability to make it clear and concise.

Obama like most liberals are hypocrits....they argue its unsafe for schools to have armed guards while they send their own kids to private schools with armed guards.

THey argue citizens should not be allowed to have handguns or what they incorrectly call "Asssult weapons"..while they themselves have conciel carry permits and personal bodyguards with their own guns.

They argue how the evil corporate types aren't paying their fair share while giving Hollywood and other lefties special tax breaks.

The same brain damaged morons call an AR-15 a high powered weapon when the 5.56mm round known also known as the .223 what most are chambered for.

THe .223 round is illegal to use for Deer hunting in most states because it lacks sufficient stopping power to drop a deer cleanly. THe Military is moving away from it for the very same reason, its not an effective round to stop enemy soldiers.

The Special forces Sniper rifle is (from my understanding) Based on the Remington 700. Which is a simple nice but unimpressive looking Hunting rifle that is far more effective than an AR-15 if you want to kill something. Its got the stopping power..the quality to reach out and hit the target you want to hit...and it uses rounds that have better ballistics and stopping power.

It just doesn't have the Oooooo Ahhhhh factor of fancy looking black stuff that solely makes the gun look tough or impressive to the unknowing..and the unexperienced person who likes to flap their gums rather than engage their brain. But looks do not equal function...or Quality.


I think we should take all of these morons that think the AR-15 and the Bushmaster and the other replicas have such awesum firepower....out to the Alaskan wilderness and challeng them to take down a Grizley bear each.

I doubt most of them would survive the attempt.

THink about it..the same party of numbnuts that was not long ago GIVING thousands of guns to the Mexican drug cartels (and for all we know they are STILL doing) is now preaching to disarm the Law Abiding citizens of our own country.

You're getting close, keith. First, let's clear up who the "we" are who have connected the dots and the "we" of the "nearly unanimous decision" that I want Americans to give up guns in the looming battle. No names. Are you speaking for those of God-like ability to categorize members as good and evil for their political inclinations, as you do here. Or, as spokesman for those "nearly unanimous," you're perhaps representing a divided group. Since there's no such thing as unanimity in anything, I think the latter. But which is it?

There's nothing condescending in asking of your experience in fighting gun control. Your reluctance to answer and errant understanding and misinterpretation of what I've said has made me wonder if you've had any experience in the trenches other than NRA membership and preaching to the converted. Have you got out of the house, picketed, marched around legislatures, represented gun owner interests with decision-makers, as I have? Your messages speak of inexperience. Which is it?

Now, let's be clear on what I said, not what the "we" said I said. Whenever I ask you to provide evidence of what you said I said, you provide more misinterpretation as you have again in your last message: "you would have us give up those things which you personally don't favour." Again, where's the evidence? US is far down in educational achievement in national comparisons but that's no excuse for blithely putting words in my mouth which were not said. That's arrogance. Inexcusable.

In my last message, I promised that I would reply to your messages if you read them carefully. You are not giving me that consideration. I haven't the energy to keep asking for redress of misreading or misinterpretation on your part. I do not see anything ulterior in what you write other than imputing motives, always iffy, ever unwise. At no time did I say Americans should give up their guns. To paraphrase what I did say about the looming battle, I said choose your battles, consider what the emperor can do at a stroke of his pen, as he did with Obamacare, fight the good battle on all fronts but make the best use of resources where you can win, don't dissipate energy and goodwill fighting the end of a pen.

For all the breast-beating here, for all the good intentions, from my experience in the trenches, any member who can't read with comprehension, or contrives meaning where it is not intended, would be left out of battle. It's tough enough as it is. The US Marine Corps wouldn't permit it nor would I. Those who think differently may do what they will, and will. I've seen my duty by describing how we went about it in Canada, an entirely different country with different people. Do what you will. I've seen my duty and done it.

Kind regards, King

King:
As far as I'm concerned it's time to end the semantics and endless chatter here and get to work.
I made a couple of proactive recommendation's as to what YOU could do with our NRA, as a volunteer advisor, and within Canada to get some real teeth into you own Constitution and this sofar has met with silence.
Here's an opportunity to become part of the solution. The balls in your court.
Jim

King, I believe the frustration comes from your condescension. You've achieved an important Canadian victory, but you're comfortable living under quite a bit more gun control than some of the folks around here would prefer. Your reasoning of bipartisan cost effectiveness, intentionally conceals the controlling party's platform and its constituents.

My read on your victory. Someone else had the idea and the will to see it through, and you were a paid consultant to advise. That's ok, and I may be wrong. I don't believe the Marines would willfully ignore an enemy, unless someones ideology steered the mission.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

NRA contact, please. Thanks.

Here is the link:

http://www.nraila.org/

They should look to Britain's gun control laws. It doesn't work here so why would they think it would work in America. Lagopus.....

True about consensus on gun control; different folks, different strokes.We chose laws as you do there.

I haven't met a community activist who's paid to do what responsible citizens are supposed to do to make healthier and happier communities.

I'm paid when manuscripts, stories are accepted, as any professional. I'm paid as coordinator of the fastest-growing and unique sustainable forestry program in the world, a private not public enterprise.

NRA needs help, for sure, as has been mentioned here several times. That last boner wouldn't have got past me. My help in these matters of citizenship is always pro bono, as it would be with NRA which is already close to our anti-grabbers, mentioned here a couple weeks ago.

It's not Marines ignoring an enemy. It's Marines not accepting into its storied ranks a soldier who can't read with comprehension.

Exactly you still have a higher per capita crime rate in the UK despite far fewer people havign guns...and your Health Care system doesn't work too well either...yet the lefties think its the best thing since sliced bread.

THe problem with the lefties...ergo the Democrats, is they doin't care what the facts are...they will pretend their propaganda is real anyway.

Just like PRAVDA did in the old Soviet Union...

Need a little help here, tw. The website seems geared to what to do, not how one can contact someone to offer assistance. Perhaps a letter best approach?

That would assume the people you would be writing letters to would actually read them..or care what you thought.

When you have Ideologs like Obama, Pelosi, Boxer and Reid...they don't care about anything anyone with an opposing opinion thinks...in fact they would like to shut down anyone that disagrees with them. THey have all but said as much..and shown that through their actions.

At least the NRA has our back (I do expect they read and care about what people write.)...I half expect OweBama to delare them a terrorist group by yet another executive order designed to circumvent the legal process and the constitution.

You are so far off base with your description of the NRA's response and the public's view of it.
The NRA has better rating then Obama,and the public is voting overwhelmingly with their wallets cleaning the shelves of Guns,Magazines and Ammo

1/3 of the schools now have armed security-INCLUDLING many of the ones your fellow liberal/complicit press corp here send THEIR children too.Teachers across the country are flocking to firearms class's to get trained ( Teachers Folk to Fireamrs training ) .They WANT what the NRA is suggesting to be protected in schools!

Studies show ( John Lott Willian Landes )definitively that gun free zones are one of major cause and factor in these multiple shootings.



From a former HS official;
Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who also was a top Homeland Security official and will head the NRA effort, said the program will have two key elements.

One is a model security plan "based on the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields." Each school could tweak the plan to its own circumstances, and "armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be but one element."

King, the "we" I referenced, without naming names as per your request, is every single person, myself included, who responded to you by name. I just looked back through every post in this thread, and the "Shotgun News" thread, and one guy did agree with your statement that there has been no concerted effort to reverse the handgun registry, but he too disagreed with you on your suggested tactics. I think that's nearly unanimous.

It's amusing that if I am judgemental, you call it God-like. But the same standards do not apply to you. I've pointed out that little hypocrisy several times now. Your silence on that speaks volumes.

I've outlined my personal experience in fighting gun control several times in the past in other threads. I did admit here that I should and probably could do more. Especially if I didn't waste so much time here on obstinate members who repeatedly dance around direct questions. Please go back through these two threads and see if you can see yourself as we see you. I intentionally kept ignoring your queries about my pro-gun activities because of all the direct questions you danced around. But for your consideration, I joined the NRA in 1969 using my paper route money to pay my annual dues. Uninterupted annual member until 1978 when I became a Life Member. Upgraded to Endowment Life Member in 1990, and upgraded to Patron Life Member last year. In the intervening years, I wrote numerous letters to Editors and called into talk shows to counter misinformation on guns and gun crime and the Second Amendment. I did indeed march at my State Legislature to prevent enactment of restrictive gun laws. When my oldest daughter was only two, I held her on my shoulders at a Bill Clinton campaign speech as she held up my sign protesting his Gun Control policies. I did the same at an Al Gore rally, and two John Kerry speeches, but without anyone on my shoulders. I learned that when you protest at any Democrat Presidential rally, anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the DNC is removed by their security to a zone outside of news camera view. How very Democratic! After paying my NRA Dues, and paying to upgrade twice, I no longer was billed for annual dues. So I continued to make frequent donations to NRA-ILA, and NRA-PVF, and the amount now would go into thousands of dollars. I have given Gift NRA memberships to young relatives, and mentored them in safe shooting, hunting, and taught them the importance of vigilance in this arena. You know I always preach the importance of a strong NRA and the impact that a larger membership has on Legislation. I am no different in person, at work, or anywhere I go. I got my current Doctor to join, and it pleases me to see dog-eared copies of American Rifleman in his waiting room. When I exhort guys to make at least a small donation of at least the cost of a box of shells a year, guaranteed, I have already put my money where my mouth is, and many times that amount. I have also donated to the Second Amendment Foundation, and PGCA. And I write, way more than I have written here, when it comes to contacting my legislators at the state and federal level. I follow up with calls and e-mails stating my position and promising to watch their votes on any and all gun issues. I remind them I will hold them accountable at election time, both with my vote, and by informing other gun owners of any anti-gun votes. I did grassroots campaign work for an A+ rated Senator from my state, but I regrettably haven't had the same kind of time to do that since. Still, I do what I can for pro-gun candidates on a smaller scale by passing out literature and verbally informing friends, relatives, and co-workers of candidates positions on the 2nd. Still, as I said, I'd like to do more, and there is room for improvement. I look at the resumes of some and feel insignificant. But you don't make me feel that way.

'Twas very judgemental and "God-like" of you to suggest that I haven't been in the trenches. More of your now famous "do as I say, not as I do" responses. I would not be surprised to find that I have devoted more time and a LOT more money to the cause than you, despite the fact that you are quite a bit older than me. Tough to prove when you've given us only very vague generalities of your efforts. 'Nuff said.

It's interesting that you picked out one sentence of mine..."you would have us give up those things which you personally don't favor", and make the assertion that I arrogantly, inexcuseably put those words in your mouth. That's a crock!. I put quotation marks around your words and connected several dots, since you were so vague and cryptic with your words, and I came to the same conclusions about your meaning as the "WE" I referenced earlier. There may not be unanimity in anything, but the guys here all seem to be seeing the same thing. Are you saying we all have reading comprehension problems? Or is it possible, as I said, that the professional wordsmith is doing a poor job of communicating? Or maybe we agree because we're right. That one sentence was NOT your words and I NEVER said they were. If anyone has a problem with reading comprehension, it's you. That sentence was, and remains, my opinion. You've given me nothing to change that opinion.

Insofar as your experience and battle scars from reversing the Gun Registry, I/we remember how you touted your success and contributions to winning that battle months ago when the news about it first broke. And I/we also remember several of your own countrymen having very different recollections of what you personally did or didn't do, and what it really took to win the long and costly battle. So much for Breast Beating. And Good Intentions?... the road to hell is paved with them. Better luck next time.

[quote=King Brown]True about consensus on gun control; different folks, different strokes.We chose laws as you do there.

BS! They were forced on us despite our efforts.

Tho the media would love to pretend otherwise, perhaps especially the CBC.......

Keith, you keep saying things for which you cannot provide evidence. I've enough it. None of my countrymen on this board have commented on what I "did personally or did not do" concerning the struggle against gun control. Put up or this is the end of it. It's no service to this board to encourage you with more comment.

This truly the mark of insanity. You're all dumping on eachother over an issue that demands focus on Washington. This is partially why we're facing another four years of despotism!

No..I blame that on the leeches that voted for more free stuff those of us who pay taxes will have to pay for, because they aren't part of that group which actually pays federal taxes.

If you are going away, THANK YOU!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oH8u9PxWJo

Hi kids…

Sorry I’ve been AWOL for the last two evenings as we were doing the Basketball “Coaches for Cancer” games at our daughters High School. My better half is the basketball boosters treasurer and rides herd over all activities that involve cash…concessions…50/50…cancer society donations…etc.
The varsity girls played and won last night lead by their spectacular point guard #20 (hint same last name as mine). This evening the boys team lost…No Weber’s on that team as my boys have long since graduated.

In any event the events raised about $1400 for the American Cancer Society which is a good thing.
Now to the matter at hand.

I see “less than civil” discussions abound and lots of eye poking going on in various gun rights threads. Divide and conquer has always been a hallmark of the progressive liberals and I see wedges being driven that make no sense to me. Alas some of you may have gone to the dark side of compromise. Fact is the Constitution of the US gives us all certain rights and we need to protect and re-secure these rights before they are perverted into some shape shifting document the liberals desire to suit their agenda.

I really want to serve the community at large and I will lock all the miscellaneous gun rights threads.

My goal is to consolidate the discussions into a single informational thread and make it a sticky on the main forum (it will be obvious).

If you wish to post informational material about preserving our 2nd Amendment rights please do so in the sticky thread at the top of the page.
Just to reiterate….I’m after informational material that has to do with preserving our rights. I don’t want your opinion about how many rounds a magazine should or should not have…that is irrelevant. If you are a free law abiding, mentally competent, tax paying, hard working citizen in the US; I don’t care how many rounds you can stuff into a magazine, I don’t care if you’re black or white or green or gay or straight or even if you have three arms and a tail. I don’t care what kind of firearm you favor…AR, SxS, pistol, flint lock…it makes no matter to me…Because you’re one of the good guys.

PS - If you want to post a thesis on the swell ideas for chipping away at our rights by imposing more onerous gun controls than we currently have…This might not be a suitable place for your opinion and I will most likely move your thread to mis-fires.

Thank you all for you participation.