Dave:
With all due respect I don't think ANY topic that deals with the anti's attempt at gun contol should be anywhere other than in the mainstream of this forum. Their goal is to try and bury this information much as the "mainstream news media" buries attempts and supress the facts about Operation Fast and Furious.
The anti's will maintain that these forums should be devoid of "political" commentary and only discuss firearms. Their reasoning here is obvious.
It's your forum and you can certainly do as you wish. However anytime you relegate posts related to "Gun Control" to misfires you're playing right into the anti's hands
It's a technique they've used since Day One to get pro gun posts suppresed.
IMO: You are doing what everyone who want's to keep and maintain our rights a major diservice.
Jim

I agree Jim, gun control is not a misfire topic.

Maybe gun rights issues should have a separate forum. If it did, I would not see that as being out of the "mainstream". But we do separate guns for sale from discussions about guns, and IMO that is of benefit to the BB as a whole.

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti? What kind of BS is that?

Dave is not playing into the anti's hands.

Cut is out with the histrionics. It's tiresome.

And move it!

OWD

Say what? Dave is doing a disservice to users of this forum?? His forum, his rules, entirely up front and reasonable, always a wonderful service to users. The moved topic subject is here, prominently flagged as moved, with a link to the new location.

I think Dave should move this thread too.

Jay

Bar-keep,
Drinks all the way around for my friends.

We are,purportedly anyway,all gun owners and gun collectors and when a subject such as gun control on a gun oriented forum is taken out of the mainstream it is IMO a disservice to everyone.
I put essentially the same informative post on other gun/militaria collecting forums and no one on these forums seems to have a problem with it.
Jim

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

"Purportedly"? Hmmm, I need to think on this a while ... what other word beginning with a "p" comes to mind? Tiresome, indeed.

I have no issues with your proposal if you mean a separate area on this forum.
However; I have this identical post on other gun oriented forums without anyone taking issue with it.
Jim

No one takes issue with your post Jim ... only issue is with you castigating Dave over moving it to the other forum, which lists "gun rights" as one of its intended topics.

Definition Castigate:
to subject to severe punishment, reproof, or criticism

Excuse me G C: But I have certainly not "castigated" Dave. Go back and READ my post. I have just taken issue with his position of allowing complaints from "certain factions" here to apparently influence what appears in the mainstream area of this forum.

BTW: Here is essentially the same initial post that I made here on the Werhmacht Awards Forum in their firearms section. This forum is very large with over 31,000 members. The moderators thought that getting this information publicized was important enough to PIN the thread. NONE of the membership has expressed any issues with posting the information.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=571500

I agree with Dave Weber, this is not the right forum for the Starbuck's post. The Mis-Fire section is fine for it. Perhaps if it had been about Starbuck's policies on carrying in a double gun I would think it belonged here. Maybe if the local Vintagers had been meeting at Starbucks for a show-and-tell of old doubles and the antis were protesting that practice then this would be the right forum. My opinion.

Best,


Mike

It's posted on the forum; anyone who wants to read it can read it. What's the problem?

Unfortunately many feel that they only fight back when it concerns "their" gun and could care less about other gun owners.

To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller;

"First they came for.......(insert handguns,black rifles) and I didn't speak as I only had double guns."

Then they came for my double and there was no one left to speak for me.

Another vote for Misfires forum for such posts or, if available in the future, a new 'gun rights' forum. There's such a broad range of double gun related topics e.g., history, technicana, valuation, hunting, performance, etc... that get covered on this forum that it deserves to be kept closer to the intended subject matter as stated in its description. Folks who want to post or read about related topics such as gun rights, politics, militaria, pistols, etc... have a place to do so which is one click away on the same platform that serves the 'double gun' readership.

-jmc

Ok, sorry, castigate may be too strong a word Jim. But I think it's closer to accurate than saying Dave has done gun rights supporters "a major diservice" (sic). Managing this forum to meet his previously established rules* is no grounds for criticism -- it's merely consistent and fair.

Jay

*"Misfires @ doublegunshop.com - All topics that do not belong in one of the other forums can be placed here: Politics, Gun Rights, Hunting Dogs,...."

Jay:
I understand your point. However; I feel the same way about our gun rights as Dave K has stated above. I don't own or collect "Black" rifles. But I want to be aware of efforts to make these illegal to own and also want to support those who do collect them.
The gun grabbers have always tried to use the divide and conquor approach. The whole assault weapons ban was just a first step in their plans to ultimately get all firearms banned.
The lead shot bans,which I think strike closer to home here, are just another way of curtailing firearms use and ownership by pricing ammunition out of reach for the average person.
It's the same situation with putting an ID number on every bullet sold. Imagine the cost of this to the purchaser.
At one time when I lived in Illinois you had to show your FOID every time you so much as bought a box of ammo. Your name and address had to be logged by the clerk selling it as well.
If some of you think that bringing anti-gun owner activities to everyone's attention here is counter productive to this forum just because it doesn't have a direct affect on their interests so be it.
Jim

The Werhmacht Awards Forum??? WTF is a ref to a slimeball pack of Nazi MFers that makes your post legitimate here??

Even having that link on this board is more damning than anything I'd care to see here.

JMO of course but FOAD

Dr.WtS

That's funny.

OWD

I'm on several forums. I used that one as an example just so you could show your true colors. I don't know ONE NAZI sympathic person who collects militaria. Many celebrities including Clint Eastwood and the late Bob Hope have or had large collections of German Militaria. The ONLY NAZI sympathisers I've ever run across are the skinheads who attend gun shows but they don't have 2 nickles to rub together probably like the crowd you hang with. Whats damning is someone with your know it all attitude and low class demeanor even participating in a collecting area devoted to fine shotguns that's generally populated by gentlemen. As soon as I'm done with this post I will block any further posts from you as I've realy had it with your hateful and moronic drivel.

Couldn't agree more. The forum is an insult to 80 million deaths caused by the very people the forum glorifies. Missfires was made specifically for trash like this. Thanks, Dave, for moving this stuff. Now, lock the thread or these fanatics will keep on posting here.

One of WTS trolling friends I take it. Your blocked now as well.
I can tolerate anything but true ignorance and you certainly fall into that category.

And another point I don't remember either of you two faced fools objecting when Julias sold one of Herman Goerings High end doubles last year.I suspect that if either of you owned it you'd have broken it up and thrown it away.
Yeah Right!
Also since the Russians caused far more deaths in WW II that the Germans I'm awaiting you campaign to get Geno removed from this forum due to his association.

I doubt anyone who frequents this site is anti gun.

We have categories for reason and I support Dave Weber in relegating conversations on gun control to misfires or developing a seperate sub group for them.

I frequent this site more than any other because of it singular focus. I onsider this and 16ga.com treasures and I would prefer they not devolve into politics as a primary focus

Dave Weber has kindly tolerated slightly off topic topics related to gun control many times in the past, and rightly so. The anti's are anti all guns... even the ones with two barrels. Every time we lose our focus and lose an inch, we are one step closer to the day when we either cannot own Doubles or cannot afford to shoot them.

I just skimmed over the past 10 pages of topics in the Doublegun BBS forum. Among the strongly double gun related topics are "Missing Boykin Spaniel", "C&R License Renewal", "Luxury Safes", "Ithaca 37 Question", "Peter Hathaway Capstick", "How Many Wear Blaze Orange?", "USA Today-Poll", and even a birth announcement. Now, I personally don't have a problem with any of them, but I wonder where the righteous indignation was when these were front and center on the Doublegun forum.

Let's face a couple realities here. First, the Misfires forum could be called the Seldom Seen Forum. There are many less threads and many less views there. Second, Gun Control is a never ending quest for many groups and politicians. We would have our heads in the sand if we doubted that or choose to ignore the threat. Third, and perhaps most important, we are entering a very important election cycle. We have an avowed anti-Second Amendment president up for re-election. He has already gotten two very Anti-Gun Supreme Court justices nominated and confirmed. If he gets another chance, we will have an anti-gun majority. If he gets re-elected and no longer has to worry about another term, he will by-pass Congress with Executive Orders. He has already publicly promised to do just that. He could ban lead ammo as an environmental hazard and make millions of acres of Federal land illegal to hunt or shoot firearms on. He could sign the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty, and we would be here on page one crying about having to surrender our guns.

I, for one, would rather be pro-active about my gun rights. I actually read most all of those aforementioned off-topic topics. It really didn't hurt me or take much away from the predominately Double Gun related content. If I did not care for those topics, I could simply skip over them. Why is that so very difficult? And why would anyone here believe that issues related to gun control have no bearing on our ownership of double guns? How many English doubles are here in our country as a result of the restrictions on guns over there? Off Topic? Hardly.

Quote from Old Colonel:

"I doubt anyone who frequents this site is anti gun"

You can start doubting right now. This is a typical and well known liberal tactic to disrupt forums like this one.

Quote from keith above:
"I, for one, would rather be pro-active about my gun rights. I actually read most all of those aforementioned off-topic topics. It really didn't hurt me or take much away from the predominately Double Gun related content. If I did not care for those topics, I could simply skip over them. Why is that so very difficult? And why would anyone here believe that issues related to gun control have no bearing on our ownership of double guns? How many English doubles are here in our country as a result of the restrictions on guns over there. Off Topic? Hardly."

Thanks keith:
I was beginning to think sanity and reason had left this forum.
Jim

Fuds who own and collect only the "proper" firearms and object to the ownership of "Black" firearms will sell other gunowners out in a New York minute, generally.

I'm pleased to see that Sanity still exist on this forum. Thanks for the public and private support guys.
Btw: I took the time to go through about 1/3 of WTS's posts to see what he owns and has posted.
Well' He's posted nothing as far as I can see?? I along with other members here eagerly await the posting of his collection which is anticipated to be 2 Belgiun clunkers and a rusty Winchester Model 24.
Jim

So one must agree with you to be considered sane? Now can it be seen why the politics is assigned to another forum? Thanks for moving this stuff of the doublegun discussion Dave.

Dr. WTS -

THANK YOU!

Jim, I don't see how you could have "a separate area on this forum". General Discussion is one forum, Guns For Sale another, Misfires another. What I'm suggesting, as something of a compromise, is that--if there's enough interest in gun rights to warrant its own separate forum, not part of Misfires--then let's have a Gun Rights forum. Maybe you want to start a separate topic on General Discussion, asking the members here whether they think there ought to be a Gun Rights forum. I'm sure Dave will pay close attention, and if there's enough interest, he'll likely create a new forum--just as he created Misfires.

Sorry for the somewhat late reply.
Kid has had multiple basketball games this week and last night was a late one (one hour drive to and from)…we did secure the win in the last seconds of the game…It was 5 vs 5 vs 2. Last evenings game featured the absolute worst referring I have ever seen! The guys in stripes were total idiots. Highlights were a ball going out of bounds and neither ref witnessed it so no whistle was blown for 5 seconds. Then they had to ask the coaches who should get the throw in. Also, in the last minute of the game a player form the other team was literally taken out by a ref not paying attention to how the play was developing. He basically crushed this poor little girl. There is much more but it’s quickly becoming a rant for the mis-fires forum…;-)

First let me dispel a viscous rumor about me being anti gun.
(I think I just peed my pants I’m laughing so hard….enough said on that topic.)

Second, let me state that I do try to be fair on the board when it comes to moving topics. If I get a request and the thread is a better fit for another predefined forum I typically honor the request.

I don't really put any deep thought into it as I feel you all have access to all the forums and will pick the channel you like most to frequent. If you feel the threads in the mis-fire forum get less play that’s really supply and demand issue.

As in most cases; I am torn as to the appropriate course of action. I see valid points put forth from both sides of the move or no move issue. I will most likely leave this thread alone to run its’ course.

Thank you all for your participation.

I feel little need to justify my beliefs or record in defense of our constitutional rights

I once again maintain that we should focus this forum on doubleguns. I further hold that we should let discussions of other than doublegun conversation and closely related subjects elsewhere.

Construct a seperate area that can focus on gun control, politics, black guns, and other junk or simply rename MISFIRES to something that sensitive individuals will not be offending by being placed in

I'd like to see all political postings put in a seperate place, rather than here. It seems as if anyone says they generally shoot their left barrel more than their right Italian SS labels them a "liberal" and creates yet another conspiracy. Perhaps left barrels should be plugged? Or better yet removed from SxS guns? I care deeply about protecting our gun rights, as I am sure all of the others posting on these forums do. (Except of course for the "Liberal infiltrators" intending to disrupt it). I KNOW beyond doubt what my beliefs are, and how I am going to vote. I am quite fed up with the injection of politics into every single issue. This is a forum for us to discuss double guns, two barrels, one right one left. If you dont like your left barrel, dont shoot it...

Perfect LD ! Now that is what sanity looks like.

You're the arbiter, Dave. Managing is making decisions in the face of uncertainty. During the 10 years I've been here, involved in more than a few hot issues, I think if there's any fault on your part it's allowing things to go on too long. A few times, you may have pulled the trigger too soon.

That's a good record of itself. But there's more to it. Your job is to protect the integrity of a board of extraordinary value to members around the world. Nothing should be off limits about how we feel about doubles and the shooting sports environment. Set the standard too high, none will come. Ditto, too low.

I've worked among Americans for many years as an observer. Distinguishing marks of their character are their generosity and good manners. (Primaries are a different place entirely.) "Our" board should reflect that generous spirit of individuality, of tolerance of a wide range of opinions without rudeness, bitterness, spite.

I have no idea of who you are, Dave, of your day job or circumstances, experience in balancing openness and accountability with fairness across such a broad constituency of different cultures and values. I have long experience with similar responsibilities. I want you to know you're doing a good job.

Regards, King

Thanks Dave. Just for the record, I never thought you fired your left barrel more than the right. (thanks for that metaphor Chuck, I was laughing as soon as I saw it)

Regards
Chuck

Dave Weber I'm going to dispel a couple of items right now.

I have NEVER accused you of being anti-gun. Go back to my original post on Valentines Day at the start of this thread and it's clear I stated that you are playing right into the antis hands when you move a thread such as this one into an obscure area such as Misfires. Since they have no valid arguments to suppot there liberal/socialist position the'll whine on every thread on every forum that posts such as this are just mean spirited politics.
EVERY firearms and militaria collecting forum I'm on has had problems with trolls trying to cause trouble. This forum IMO is no exception and there are anti-gun posters here. They whine constantly and claim any post that's pro gun rights for ALL guns is politically motivated. Well go back and read the article I linked to about the Valentine's day Starbucks anti gun protest and please point out where politics is even mentioned.
The fight to keep our 2nd Amendment right is and has to be a daily one or we'll end up in a situation as unfortunate as Great Britians.
I also want to thank those of you who contacted me privately in support but didn't want to subject themselves to the hateful attempt at public ridicule I have had to endure.
Jim

King: I too agree with your position and I believe that the vast majority of members here are true gentlemen. I don't care if someone disagrees with something I post as long as they are polite. It's when someone like wonko starts to include cursing and derogatory labels in their response that I take exception.

+1

+1 also.

The Valentines Day anti gun/Starbucks article post WASN'T political. Here it is again read it for yourself
Anything I post that's political, about Obama for example, I've put into the "Misfires" area as this is a gun forum. This article is about an anti-gun attempt by a faction who apparently hates guns.
There is no specific mention of politics in the article.
Jim

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...-valentines-day

WHOA!! I'm running scared now!!! Good to know that your eyes will no longer be despoiling my golden posts.

I knew this old Jew guntrader guy. Long since dead, God rest his soul. He made a couple $million selling Nazi crap to so-called "collectors of Nazi memorabilia". He just laughed his azz off that those Hitler smooching butt kissers would pay him good money so they could join in the memory of a loser mass murderer. And AFAIC everything even remotely associated with that time or group should be at the bottom of the Marianas Trench and I don't care how many gold inlays it had.

have a day

Dr.WtS

I think Wonko's inflammatory comments have knowingly 'fueled the fire' of this thread. The initial intent dealt with gun control....it wasn't about the Nazi's. Let's give this thread a rest. I'm sure the majority here are against most gun control. We get the jist.

Amen!

We used to have a few probable anti-gun trolls. Dave exorcised them. We may still have some trolls, but at least they're pro-gun trolls.

I know Jim, and he is an honorable guy. His wife is an absolute treasure. The Werhmacht reference disturbed me also; his choice.
When we bird hunted together near Sonoita I made 3 rules:
1. Don't shoot my dog
2. No medical talk: I'm out there for the joy of being out there and to escape the pain and suffering, death and dying.
3. No politics: see #2. Working in correctional medicine, I don't need to be reminded of man's depravity or the degeneration of our society.
Since politicians vote on gun rights issues; it is political.

We're here because of our shared interest in things double gun and, since we apparently have computer access, are perfectly capable of educating ourselves about those issues that matter to us.
Possibly we could all respect Dave's parameters and restrict our posts here to "Questions & Answers - Side-by-side shotguns, Doubleguns, GameGuns...etc."

+1

Thanks for your kind comments Drew:
I have a varied collection of firearms and militaria. I am not a frequent poster on the WAF forum nor have I bought much of anything in recent memory as prices are sky high for items from this period. Additionally these artifacts firearms,daggers,swords etc. are all uniformly of very high quality. I conciously used that forum as an example because I knew what this Wonko guy would do and he sure did it. Additionally I have been a student of WW II since I was a teenager probably due to my uncles regaling me with stories from their time in the service.
However I will tell you all this:
If someone should go on the WAF forum and make ANY kind of comment in support of the 3rd Reich they will be expelled immediately.
Anyone on here own any double guns made between 1933 and 1945? If you do they were made when the evil empire was in charge and you own a relic from that period.
Here's an example of an item from that period that sold for over $400,000. I guess in the views of some here this should have been melted down for scrap. BTW: The militaria dealer, who I know, who acquired this desk set from the vet that brought it back is Jewish. Virtually every auction house that sells firearms such as Julias,Rock Island, etc. also readily sell 3rd Reich regalia.
I guess all who take exception to these items should boycott those auction sites.
The period from 1933 to 1945 was one of the most horrifc eras in human history but ignoring it or the remaining artifacts is to ignore history.
Additionally someone brought up the number of total deaths as a result of WW II as being around 80,000,000. The majority, over 50%, can be directly attributed to Joseph Stalin and the Communist regime. Where is the outrage over those who collect Russian military items?
Jim
http://my.news.yahoo.com/hitlers-desk-set-sells-423-000-us-020605856.html

I started this thread with the simple expectation that everyone would note that the antis were planing to boycott Starbucks on Valentines day and with the hopes that everyone would take note and support Starbucks. I never expected things to turn out this way.
I again want to thank you that have supported me both publicly and privately and perhaps we can now get back to collecting.

I can't believe a lot of what I'm reading here. A few guys who have made posts here numerous times in the past pertaining to fishing, dogs, drinking tequila, etc., are pontificating that the content here MUST remain 100% Double Gun. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

There is an indisputable link between guns (even double guns) and politics. Every issue of the American Rifleman is infused with politics. Some may not like or enjoy that, but if all of us refused to keep informed and spread the word about the continual assault on our rights to keep and bear arms, we would have lost that right by now. If you are at the doctors office and see a copy of American Rifleman in the magazine rack, you can read it or say... "I don't care for the politics in that rag so I will read something else instead." So what is so hard about doing that here? Just don't read the things that do not interest you. Again, I think it's wrong for gun guys to not want to keep abreast of anti-gun issues, but that's a personal choice. No one worried about all the other non-double gun related threads that I pointed out earlier. But this is causing much consternation. Why is that?

Last observation: It appears that Dave Weber did not move the original thread. It sounds like he only does things like that when someone asks him to do so. Considering the other non double topics that fly just fine here, it sounds like there is some kindergarten stuff going on that we may not be aware of.

keith:
I certainly agree with your above points. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions as to whether a gun related topic is relevant to this forum and our hobby and I suspect the vast majority of the members here believe this to be judging from what I've seen.
I also have to think it'd reasonable to question someones motives who objects to airing potential issues created by the antis. At least I believe I've demonstrated who the real bigots are on this forum.
I heard last nite the Jerry Brown aka "Governor Moonbeam(CA)" has banned the public display of unloaded handguns after some complaints from unnamed sources. Apparently several gun owners showed up at a Starbucks with unloaded open carry pistols to counter the antis the last time around when they staged a boycott.
I also read yesterday the New Jersey is potentially enacting an ammunition ban bill that would essentially outlaw the sale of virtually all ammunition in the State. The bill basically states that any ammunition that's potentially harmful to the police will be banned from sale. I expect this would include most types of shotgun ammo. Getting closer to home here?
This is an ongoing and constant battle so you can face up to it or stick your head in the sand and hope it will go away.
Jim

Jim,
I have no particular beef with where you put your post. However, when you're in someone else's house, you should be respectful of where you are.

Chuck:
Frankly I'm surprised at your comment. I have been labeled a racist,ignorent, and now a neo-nazi among other things by Wonko and his gang. If I've disrespected them so be it.
Furthermore; I don't see any posts on you're part taking exception with them for their crude behavior.
I think I've bent over backward in not responding in kind.
I'll state this one more time then I'm done with this thread.
I posted the Starbucks pistol boycott for informational purposes
on a gun site period. That was my sole intent to inform.
Others have pointed out that all sorts of non-double related posts are made here without the poster receiving the ration of crap I've been subjected too.

Same for them, Jim. But my comment was more about Dave's determination to move the original thread and your long public protest. I've had threads moved to other forums by Dave and other moderators on other sites. More times than not, I've disagreed with the decision. I got over it because it really wasn't/isn't that important. I think you should have taken your objection up with Dave offline instead of trying to debate this in the court of public opinion. Again, I have no beef with the original thread, just this one.

As I said I'm done with this topic. IMO; There's nothing further to discuss.
Jim

Thank God! At last!

I saw no place in this thread where Jim was in any way disrespectful to our host. Maybe the mere fact that he raised the question in a new thread is considered poor manners by some, but I imagine Jim is/was as confused as I am about how some threads that have no direct relationship to Double Guns can go on for days without anyone crying foul, while others such as his are abruptly moved. Then, in Dave Webers' reply, he said,

"Second, let me state that I do try to be fair on the board when it comes to moving topics. If I get a REQUEST and the thread is a better fit for another predefined forum I typically honor the request."

I capitalized the word request because it appears likely Jims' original thread was moved to Misfires due to someone taking issue and asking Dave to do so. Dave also chose to let this new topic, which is also unrelated to doubles, run its' course right here in the Doublegun BBS. He obviously is interested in viewpoints on both side of the issue. And he has always been reasonable and allowed us a certain amount of latitude. That, to me, has always been part of the charm, and success, of this Forum. Some peoples panties seem to get wadded up pretty easily. Others don't. But I'll bet a dollar that if we knew who asked Dave to move Jims' original thread, we would find that person has some personal beef with Jim. I'll bet another dollar that that individual won't man-up and admit to it. But how else could we explain that his topic had any less relevence than posts about lost Boykin Spaniels, or wearing Flourescent Orange, or Ithaca model 37's, or driving in a snowstorm, or a thousand other topics that had zip-zilch-nada to do with doubles.

To sum things up, it appears;

(1)It is just fine to have a multi-day thread about Gun Safes to protect against physical threats to our guns.

(2)It should be verboten to post a thread about political or legislative threats to our guns.

To me, that is wrong on so many levels. And it doesn't bode well for future generations maintaining the right to keep and bear arms. Some may say we are crying wolf. I say those folks have ridden the coat-tails of the fraction of gun-owners who have kept the wolf at bay.

And one more thing... no one held a DOUBLE-GUN to your head and forced you to read any of this. Now we're on topic.

P.S. I really liked those pictures of driving to a hunting trip in a blizzard... even if it was a bit off topic.

Rants and mis information always fascinate me..FYI: I did not post the blizzard pictures..Another person on this BBS, who shall remain nameless is the guilty party

Who you callin nameless?

Well we got a h0meless, we need a nAmeless..if the foo shits..

Mea culpa and accept my apologies Last Dollar. Glad you found my rant fascinating. Uh, while we're talking doubleguns, are those Turdhounds you frequently reference Birmingham or London guns? I know, nobody likes a smart azz. I wasn't raised that way. I guess I'm a product of my environment. Credit due to Chuck for those great blizzard shots taken while driving. I really did enjoy that and felt no compulsion to alert Dave that they might belong in Misfires. That's the whole point I was trying to make... the slightly off topic topics take nothing away from the vast amount of double gun knowledge we get here, and they often add a little flavor and extra interest. And the occasional post that reminds us that there are threats to gun rights are only meant to help us keep our eyes on the prize. I sincerely hope that Mr. Weber agrees.

No problem..When I use the term "Turdhounds" I am usually referring to Bird Dogs owned by that Scalawag "Amarillo Mike"The thread you referenced was most ON topic..It documented Great guys, bringing Great guns to my home place..It was an honor and a great pleasure to be able to get so many Friends together for what turned out to be a pretty good hunt....

More interesting than informative, Doug's asking for a line-up of suspects so we could see who's here and what they're doing in so many locales was a real lift with me.

As for vigilance in protecting our interests, I don't need getting hit over the head every day. For those who think it's required, common decency should cover it. There's no excuse for rudeness. None. I'm among friends.

Not trying to be rude here, but what type of computer is that you have which self-clicks on topics you don't like, and then forces you to read them? I will agree that it could get old if we were getting bombarded with gun control topics every day. But we're not. Not even close.

Mostly, when we hear from gunowners or former gunowners in Great Britain, Australia, or your Canada, they advise us here in the United States to never let our guard down lest what has happened to them happen to us. They never had a Second Amendment to defend, and quietly and politely accepted a steady attrition.

Clearly King doesnt have the same kind as you do Keith, which repeats the same dogma every time you get near it. Who are you to tell any of us we dont have to read things? If we dont read things how would we know we shouldnt have?...You are rude.

Last dollar and others of your ilk:
If you don't think we have a concentrated and serious attempt to errode our rights to own firearms in this Country then don't bother watching the Super Bowl today.
A purported attempt will be made to promote the overthrow of these rights by a couple of George Soro's mayoral puppets in a commercial during the game.
And YOU'RE objecting to our pointing out the need for vigilence on a gun forum???

Thought you were done? Lastworditis get to you?

He's throwing ilks about again..These guys are never done, they are always off on some tirade and continue to preach to the choir. Who does this wop think he is convincing? FYI: I wont watch the Superbowl today. Who the F**K is Soro? Another Kenyan?? Our gun rights will be overthrown during the Superbowl? OMIGOD, what next...??? I know! Space invaders, The same ones that killed Kennedy!

Okay another example of a disgusting liberal who has nothing really relevent to say so he resorts to name calling,ethnic slurs and cursing. If you don't know who George Soros is then you've just demonstrated how truly ignorant you really are.
I guess your tactic now is to be as obnoxious as you can in the hope's that Dave Weber will shut down this thread thereby shutting those up who want to publicize what you and the Kenyan are really up to.
If you actually OWN a shotgun why don't you go spit on it as you're attempting to spit on our Constitional rights.
Additionally you appear to be a truly sick individual in need of professional help.
You'll be blocked as well as soon as I finish this post.

Jim,
You have singlehandedly alienated a group of people on a gun forum over the topic of gun rights. No small accomplishment.

While I appreciate the efforts of all who work hard to keep our 2nd Amendment rights, sometimes how it's done goes too far and has a negative effect on the goal. Getting "the message" out at any cost isn't helpful when it crosses certain lines.

I Truely believe that radical nut cases like the Italian do more damage to the cause of protecting our gun rights than they do good. I fear that we will all be viewed in the same vein as these people who see conspiracies at every turn, and who preach unfounded "facts" to everyone. Those of us who have been fighting to keep our 2nd amendment rights, for so long are being damaged by these people. Soon, we will have NO credibilty. I was given my first gun, and a lecture on our rights over 70 years ago, by my father. He, until his death, fought to keep our rights, as will I until mine.

All this talk has made me hungry. I think I'll have a serving of the 2nd Amendment over light, on toast, yolk intact, hold the 1st Amendment, side orders of 3rd through 27th Amendments ,and yes, thank the chef for the 21st which repealed the pesky #18. America, you gotta love her.

No Grits?

LD: 100%

I too agree 100% with Last Dollar - guess it's just us
"liberal" Kansans. Very similar to some of the irrational
anti-wolf diatribes.

John J. Ingalls on Kansas. I think he shot prairie chicken with a double so we can stay on topic

"Kansas has been the testing ground for every experiment in morals, politics, and social life. Doubt of all existing institutions has been respectable. Nothing has been venerated or revered merely because it exists or has endured. Prohibition, female suffrage, fiat money, free silver, every incoherent and fantastic dream of social improvement and reform, every economic delusion that has bewildered the foggy brain of fanatics, every political fallacy nurtured by misfortune, poverty, and failure, rejected elsewhere, has here found tolerance and advocacy."

More here http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1YeFat6AO8K_0g5fqQFQ1lLOabAQ9ZRP8RxdCmmQ3Ct0&pli=1

John J. Ingalls died in 1900 and I believe wrote this many years earlier. Not quite the Kansas I know.

You know Last Dollar, when there were some threads running in Misfires a few weeks ago about Operation Fast and Furious, you kept responding in a manner that suggested you didn't agree that this (Fast and Furious)was a problem that gunowners should discuss or be concerned about. You said you were against Obama but, although I didn't say so at the time, it sure seemed like you disdained anything negative said about his administration. Do you have a rainbow bumper sticker on your truck? You also very much wanted the threads to end. Note again that these threads were in Misfires. After the first view, you certainly knew this was not your cup of tea, but you kept coming back to piss and moan.

The current thread began days ago and again you are unhappy. You say these things belong in Misfires, but when this type of thing is in Misfires, you keep coming back like a moth to a flame so you can piss and moan. And you keep right on coming back to the current thread even though you say you don't like it. I say if you don't like it, simply don't click on it. You knew you didnt like it days ago. I shouldn't have to ask you not to read it since you obviously don't like it. But you feel compelled to click on it just so you can piss and moan. And then you call me rude. That may be true, but it would be something we have in common. But I have not been a petty, whining, piss and moaning hypocrite.

Shortly after you called me rude, you got down in the mud and called Jim a WOP. That is precious. It confirms some things I've suspected, but was not rude enough to say. I don't recall you acting this way in the past. Are you perhaps getting too much sun down there in Mexico? Maybe hitting the tequila a bit too much?

Read my last few posts...I dont think that any of your collective paranoia belongs here at all. I believe you radicals do us harm, as a group. I believe that your conspiracy theorys reduce our credibility in the eyes of the antis. I do not choose to be lumped with people who continually present false data. If you really want to protect our second amendment rights, do something besides babbling on the internet, if you think that forcing your dogma on gun fanciers is productive, you are a fool. Where I come from, "wop" is a term of endearment. Have you ever been out of Keokuk? Sun and Tequila are fine, thank you

Take a walk in any city that has an Italian neighborhood and call somebody a wop. I dare you.

Don't know where you're from last dollar but where I'm from you call me a wop you had better have good health insurance. Now I'm no tuff guy and I'm not looking to start anything and I know you weren't addressing me, it just struck me a little funny that I was a member of this board for all of an hour or so and came across that little gem. Another funny thing is I was kind of agreeing with you up to that point.

LR, when I saw you joined today, I was kind of hoping you wouldn't find your way into this topic. This sort of stuff is really not common here. People can get emotional and key things they'd not likely say to someone's face without more thought about courtesy and choice of words.

Welcome, anyway.

Jay

Thanks jay. Not anything I haven't run across before. Trust me, I don't get angry when someone disagrees with me. One of my strengths among the many of my weaknesses is being able to see more than one side of things. Peoples life experiences, upbringing, and any number of other factors leads them to believe what they believe, and I can't expect them to always be in line with what I think and believe, but I will demand civility when we agree to disagree.

Lonesome: I have read many of Last Dollar's posts and I am convinced he is not a mean person. I agree his choice of the word wop wasn't very politically correct, but I think he may not believe it is a terribly derogatory term. I think he had an emotional moment and I'm sure he wishes he hadn't used that particular terminology. The other day I used the term 'jap' in reference to a Model 23 Winchester not really thinking I had used a derogatory term. Another member here sent me an email to the effect that 'jap' may not be politically correct. I agreed and PROMPTLY edited my post to Japanese. I want to give Last D the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Hay watch that stuff my wop wife might read this thread.

Buzz

That's the reply I was hoping to here from LD. I think you are right and I don't hold grudges. I have a feeling he's a good guy, at least I hope so.

LD...please leave me out of this insanity.

Hi jOe,

Yea enough is enough. Said my piece, I'm done. Good taste in shotguns and women. Knew there had to be a reason I liked you. As its been said before, sure ain't your looks.

I feel better all ready.

So Last Dollar, official arbiter of who and what belongs here, everything I present here is "false data"? Obama really has a 100% pro gun voting record? Operation Fast and Furious was a legitimate operation intended to get the drug cartel members to live in peace so U.S. gun dealers and gun shows would no longer be a scapegoat blamed for gun violence in Mexico? Sotomoyer and Kagan are likely to be very pro-Second Amendment in Supreme Court decisions? There have been no attempts in recent years to ban lead ammunition or limit hunting and shooting access on federal lands? There is no pending anti-gun legislation and no anti-gun movement in this country that gunowners ought to oppose or even be aware of? There have been no frivilous lawsuits against the firearms industry aimed at making guns and ammunition unaffordable? There has been no attempt to demonize guns and hunting in our schools? You can disagree with my belief that Obama is probably not a citizen because all I have is a ton of circumstantial evidence, a freshly minted Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (which is not a true Birth Certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him) and a lot of non-disclosure of educational records from the "most transparent administration in history". I'll give you that one.

You say you're fighting until your death to keep our rights? Where? All we see you doing is trying very hard to stifle any discussion of gun rights here, and it appears you don't even see any threats elsewhere.

Every month, and every day, Wayne Lapierre forces much of this same dogma on gun fanciers. Far from being unproductive, he has seen NRA membership more than double during his tenure. Repetition of this dogma is what made Bill Clinton call the NRA the most powerful lobby in the U.S. after the shellacing the Democrats took in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Actually, I do a fair amount to support the Second Amendment besides babbling on the internet. I have been an NRA member since 1968. Paid annual dues with my paper route money. Upgraded to Life Member in the mid 70's. Donate money to NRA and ILA every year. Upgraded to Endowment Life Member about 15 years ago. Wrote numerous editorial letters and wrote, called, and e-mailed elected officials at the state and federal level in support of a pro-gun agenda. Upgraded again to Patron Life Member and bought a gift NRA membership for my nephew recently. Campaigned for pro gun candidates. Got many kids involved and interested in the shooting sports. Talked the talk, walked the walk, and put my money where my mouth is. Carried the mail for gunowners like you who take it for granted or think it happens by magic.

Believe whatever you want, but every time you respond, you're showing who the fool is. I can't wait to see your next nuggets of wisdom. By the way, I don't even know where Keokuk is, but in everyplace I have been, calling Italians WOPS will cause you problems. Maybe you should try calling the folks down there in Mexico spics or wetbacks as a term of endearment just to see how that sh*t flushes.

"I believe that your conspiracy theorys reduce our credibility in the eyes of the antis."
Last Dollar, we have NO credibility in the eyes of the antis. Whether you shoot a fine old Elsie, or a black rifle, or a flocking Gluck; you are still a gun totin', beer swillin, pickup drivin', redneck animal murderer to them.....And we're not paranoid if they're REALLY out there...... Grant.

Grant, respectfully, I think perhaps you might be viewing the situation too negatively.

Yes, there are antis out there, many of whom are rabid but others are not. Many of them simply don't understand and I have over the years found that a little bit of education goes a long way. I try to take them out to the range and let them see what goes on - and let them shoot as well. I've actually gotten a few people interested in shooting and two of them now bird hunt with me. Most of the time they simply see that shooting is not what they thought it was and come away with a more positive impression.

Being a serial conspiracy theorist really doesn't help the matter - it truly (in my opinion) lowers credibility.

Very few antis think that sane, serious gun owners are "a gun totin', beer swillin, pickup drivin', redneck animal murderer" and those who do will never be swayed.

There are many people who really don't care much either way and those are the ones we need to recruit.

Any one that doesn't believe the Antis are nOt conspiring against the Legal Gun owners are dumb'r a box of rocks.

Exactly!!
http://pjmedia.com/blog/more-gunwalker-emails-suggest-gun-control-conspiracy/

What I'd like to know is how come labels like wop and jap etc. are so politically incorrect, but 'red-neck' seems to be perfectly alright? Maybe I take personal offence whenever I hear that. Sure I do; if I can control your speech I can control your thoughts...Geo

Canada's federal long-gun registry was a response to spectacular mass killing. I suspect US antis are fuelled by same tragic circumstances coupled to Bambi syndrome. Next month, our House of Commons representing significantly more urban than rural voters will kill the registry. Urban publics supported the registry.

Canadians aren't smarter than anyone else. Apeing the US, we're now spending a fortune on new jails while the crime rate has been falling for years. Individual assumptions, however, are often changed over time in response to experience. The shooting sports community here educated effectively.

Our national and provincial organizations didn't label antis as liberal or conservative, dingbats or socialists. It appealed to common sense. The registry was wasteful and did little if nothing to protect the public. Education is more than taking an anti to range or woods. Education in its broadest sense is uniting people in the pursuit of worthwhile goals.

Sure, antis are conspiring---as we do. Not in the sense of the word as subversive to the public interest but Canadians lobby for political influence as do Americans. Influence wanes, however, when sides become polarized by questioning each other's values. Whatever we may think, it's not smart to make distinctions of citizenship on differing opinions of hunting and guns.

On a world scale, scholars and governments are looking hard at how the West is using the word Islamophobia. It falls easily from our lips. We don't use the word anti-Muslimism as we do anti-Semitism. Not at all. As the West looks for ways to take the steam out of extremist terrorism, imagine the effect of using Islamophobia with its connotations of a quasi-medical condition!

Words mean something. My two cents anyway.

Redneck isn't politically incorrect in my books. I know it means backwoods and boorish. I guess it depends on how we use it. A buddy whom I admire and respect for living to a very high standard of human values works by a lake in the woods making and repairing aircraft in the experimental category. He's a machinist by trade. When he saw my books, he asked if I had read them. I don't think he had read a book. I shake my head and call him redneck. There's mutual respect; he knows what I mean.

I know of few who have contributed so generously to their community, with young people particularly, than my buddy. A lot of people come to visit where I live a long way in the woods on a cliff overlooking a salt water harbour. PhDs, priests, politicians, many with formal educations and influence in their professions and politics. Many are rednecks, not in the boorish sense, but selfish, ignorant of what makes a civil society. I call them rednecks politely to their face and explain why they have that effect on me.

So to come directly to your point, Geo. Redneck generally is a pejorative word. Even to use it teasingly because teasing perhaps more often is intended to hurt. I use it when convenient regardless of who I'm talking to. My buddy and friends know my meaning---with affection making a point---and the learned suits as my way of naming something, for them to come to grips with it. I wouldn't use redneck publicly, in halls or sound-bites, because of the wide range of sensitivity to the word, as you implied.

Regards, King

I guess somebody needs to tell the Blue Collar Comedians that they have to knock off their "You know you're a Redneck When------" routine.
Jim

http://www.jumbojoke.com/you_know_youre_a_redneck_when_2006_edition.html

Your thoughts about "antis" were well expressed King. Overwrought emotional appeals might be good for fundraising, but not so much when speaking to the voters we most need to reach.

The repeated repeated repeated alarums about how wrong it was for Dave to move the original thread to the forum for political discussion (please don't suggest fighting for gun rights isn't political) seem to me to fall in that overwrought category. Is it really helpful to pound away characterizing those who agree with Dave's decision as naive pawns of the antis, or ideologically impure? If there's a surreptitious anti on this board trying to undermine gun rights, he must be smiling about the divisive reactions displayed here.

Jay

King, I have to admit that the pejorative use of the term 'redneck' does not really upset me very much. Nevertheless, if I choose to act offended by it since it seems to be often aimed at rural Southerners, you would probably, as a gentleman refrain from using it around me.

Its the same with all the other pejorative labels we unthinkingly use to label others different from ourselves. My personal opinion of all this pretense at being offended is that it is after all just a method of empowerment by controlling the speech and hence the thoughts of others...Geo, with all respect

Quote:
"(please don't suggest fighting for gun rights isn't political)"

Wrong:
It is NOT political it's idealogical. There are many Democrats that support the right to keep and bear arms right along with Republicans. This is an issue that clearly crosses party lines.
Jim

If you know the history behind the term "Redneck" you would wear the term like a badge of honor, and say Thank You!!
West Virginia (Hillbilly) or Matewan or Sid Hatfield come to mind?

It's both ideological and political Jim. The definition of "political" is much broader than your use of it.

Off the topic of the thread but that was profound. Did you hire a ghost writer?

Yea Geo, fes up, where did you learn all of them fancy words?

It certainly does cross party lines and for some strange reason it often surprises folk on gun forums when they discover there are Democrats and Liberals well-represented in the shooting fraternity.

And, not every Republican is interested in having his/her reproductive rights trod upon either.

Well since it is idealogy who are we trying to convert here? I don't see anyone on here against concealed carry, open carry, possesion of handguns, rifles, shotguns.

It is a disagreement over what makes us happy here. Most are happier with the the gun rights discussion in the designated forum. That is the official rule.

The name-calling stuff is just a distraction from the real issue.

Dave Webber has sometimes had polls here to decide policy. Perhaps those of you who would like could petition Dave for a poll to move the guns-rights discussion to this forum. If you win it will be discussed here. If you lose it stays as is.


Best,


Mike

No, I'm just naturally profound...Geo

George I meant my post was off the topic. As I read it now it looks like I might be critizing the post you made. I wasn't.

Thanks,

Mike

No probelem either way, Mike. And for Treblig, not only am I naturally profound I am naturally blessed with the vocabulary to go along with the profundity...Geo


I just can't spell a lot of what I can say!

Jim do you keep that in mind all the time while you are posting? It seems to me that there is a lot of verbal blood letting on members who are of the lefty persuasion whom simultaneously enjoy owning guns. I for one am no better when it comes to defending a position.

I'm a liberal, and I own several handguns, assault rifles and of course several doubles as well, but from your take on me in prior posts you would think I'm at your doorstep trying to take your guns from you as a liberal anti gun mole.

Perhaps its best to keep in mind that we all do have something in common...

Geo

I can asure you there was no pretense of being offended. I was offended. I'm not trying to control any ones mind or thoughts, have a hard enough time with my own let alone anyone else's. If the "perjorative(sic) use of the term 'redneck' does not really upset" you that's fine. The pejorative use of the word wop upsets me, I'm sorry. I came here to talk about shotguns because I love them, not to get into pissing contests with anyone. I'm over it, its no big deal, I've got no hard feelings for anyone. Hell, wish I was down on L D's boat, lucky son of a gun. And thank you for being a gentleman in your post. Diasagree with me all you want, even be a little prickly, just don't be an a**&*le.

Ok Nca225 if you can resolve this apparent contradiction in your own mind.

However: This to me this like being a practicing Catholic and Pro Abortion or a Mormon who owns a bar or a Pentacostal who doesn't believe what's in the bible.
Jim

Or perhaps even like a conservative supporting a presidential candidate who is an acknowledged adulterer and in his third marriage?

In the words of the Great Hank Williams Jr. In re the last 2 posts" If that aint Country (political) you can kiss my ass...Come on down Lonesome, we be fishin...

Damn! Sounds like fun LD, wish I could. I'm a big Bocephus fan myself. One of the best concerts I've been to was D.A.C. and Hank in the gym at U.N.C. willmington.

Or how about a Mormon who gets a presidential endorsement from a casino magnate. The times are a changin!

Lonesome,
Make sure LD shows you a picture of the boat he's going to take you out on. Maybe bring your own liferaft just in case. Check for leaks and all the usual stuff.

Criminetly.....how many angels can dance on pinheads? Nothing like a Good Ol' Doublegunshop.com companionable and courteous discussion over a few libations around the campfire.

It doesn't matter where Dave chooses to place civil rights discussions. He doesn't eradicate them, after all. There is obviously plenty of 'board' interest here in the subject, apparently.

Should the history, reasoning, and the first rate scholarly material on the '2nd' possibly prove too difficult for the Aunties and their present defenders to assimilate, then how about some outright propaganda?

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150461978648372.370730.547278371&type=1

I swear, the apologists for gun-grabbing are like unto an interminable persistent cockroach infestation, save that the right to effective Raid still exists, despite the best [so far] efforts of Political Criminals to eradicate it.

Kindly remember, that the Right entailed in the Second, is a right of OBLIGATION. As a citizen you are obliged to participate, from the smallest political unit, unto the complete Nation.

There is no question at all that the 18th Century writer's knew what they were saying: individual ownership of and facility with firelock in good order is a political necessity to good civil order and national security. The Auntie congregation of today would have been shown short shrift by those gentleman, who had just paid in family blood and fortune to earn the liberty of free men. Every one of them knew and remembered that the direct precipitating factors of that unpleasantness centered around the Crown's effort to civilly disarm the populace.

Useful: http://www.amazon.com/Powder-alarm-1774-Robert-Richmond/dp/0877690731

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm

Disagree? Then do your own homework and figure out the genesis of the idea, as it lived and breathed for the founders of our Large Political Experiment. As to it's continued success, apparently it's got some wheels, judging from this spirited debate about where to place a discussion.

Couldn't help but think, there's not a whole lot in common. I know this is the wrong forum, but you turn over your right to keep and bear arms to folks who don't recognize our constitution. Hope you don't wake up one lame duck morning and find out your handguns got UK'd.

Please understand I have blocked certain members including this one here who I believe have nothing to contribute and just want an excuse to tee off on me with verbal racist and ethnic slurs. I have no idea what they are posting and I really could care less.
Jim

I think craig, that in your own way you are wishing me some luck on preserving my right to my handguns. Thanks for the warm sentiments, but I'm not to worried about my handguns getting UK'd.

I know you're not worried. There's that common ground split, I can't see assuming the government will meet your needs and wants. Sure, I'll wish you luck if you want, but it's really not worth much. Hope all's well up in Maine.

Chuck H

Thanks for the heads up. If I ever make it down there I'll make sure my SGLI is paid up. I was hoping maybe he was Warren Buffett spending his "Last Dollar"! Warren, if you're out there, get in touch.

Italian SxS

Your a grown man and I'm not going to lecture you or tell you how to live. Did you mention anything to LD expressing how you felt? He pissed me off and I let himknow it, man to man, so to speak. I know I've said a lot of things to people that I wished I hadn't and they forgave me. I'm no saint, I'm pretty sure LD is'nt one either. It's small potatoes Itallian, maybe you don't have bigger things to worry about, and if that's the case you are truly blessed, but some of us do and I'm not going to stew because someone used a word I don't like. He apolagised and that's good enough for me.

When I bought my 3rd last boat, my (now ex) wife said thats the "Last Dollar" you are ever going to spend on a boat...So thats what I named her...This boat should be named "Last Dime"...I called her "Coqueta", the Flirt. I think Chuck was raggin on me about her immeddiate predecessor (sp) a Big tin boat that he was consulting with me on to fix cracks and leaks. It went to the big boat yard in the sky last week...

I like those stories on how people name their boats, seems women and money are always involved....hmmm. sounds nice LD, enjoy her, get your Hemmingway on. Michigan is big boat country too. I'm pretty much a land lubber myself, but I kinda envy that boat lifestyle thing.

I had a boat I renamed twice, first rename was the Filthy Whore and then I started calling it the Antichrist. Then I sold the boat.
Steve

Boats !!! They belong to the Errol Flynn rule, the three F rule, if it flies, floats or f&ks, rent it best, Mike

UK gun inspection

Interesting story/tale of woe from somewhere without a Second Amendment

This kind of situation is precisely why I endure the criticism and disbelief from those on here who maintain we don't have to remain constantly vigilent of attacks upon our 2nd Amendment rights. I had to explain to someone on another forum why obtaining a Curio & Relic license was a waste of time in New Jersy as the whole State is under Socialist control and the won't honor it. This situation in that State I am told is the primary reason SARCO'S pulled up and moved out.
Jim

So a guy breaks his Merkel forend and a derelict dealer makes him waste 2 years and roughly USD1200?

He didn't say the cops broke it. And if he allows some "knob" to rip him off moneywise and timewise I don't see what it has to do with the 2A. And now he whines about having to relearn use of a double trigger. Sounds like a pussy.

It could just as easily be blamed on driving on the left side of the road.

And New Jersey a Socialist state?

From my perspective, the alarming part was the requirement to break all the guns down and account for all the parts and SNs.

Well...NJ does tax the hell out its citizens...but the public schools are reportedly good

Quote:
"He didn't say the cops broke it. And if he allows some "knob" to rip him off moneywise and timewise I don't see what it has to do with the 2A. And now he whines about having to relearn use of a double trigger. Sounds like a pussy."

Ok I'll go real slow for you here. This happened due to the lack of a 2nd Amendment, to protect firearms owners, and the oppressive laws in GB that forced the guy to disassemble his shotgun for an inspection in the 1st place. That's how the forend was broken and led to the 2 year replacement saga.
Jim

Very true if it was happening here. Then I'd be alarmed too. However it is going on in a foreign sovereign nation and is no concern of mine except when I shoot in the UK.

Since it ain't happening here I have more pressing things to be alarmed about.

Suppose the guy broke his forend when he was dissembling his gun to take it on an airplane? Would that have been the airlines fault?

I am not defending UK gun laws - they are stupid. Read the recent "Shooting Times" articles on how miserably the police perform in doing their licensing duties. The whole system is broken.

But I'll reserve my indignation for events over here, not there.

Besides the guy sounds like a twit.

New Jersey is the sixth wealthiest state:

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/tag/distribution-of-wealth-by-state/

so I guess that Socialism works.

Jim with all due respect most here are members of the NRA, certainly internet literate and capable of navigating to the news sources on the web.

Paul Revere was the designated courier to signal the alarm and was there first with the information. There are many parallel paths for the information and point of view you post here.

And no one is keeping you from posting that subject on this BBS. We just want you to follow the rules and post it in the proper section of the BBS.

I posted a thread marked off-topic on this forum to get help selecting rifle ammunition for my son's deer hunt. It was moved to the rifle section. I am certain someone requested Dave to move it but so what? They were just asking him to keep order and enforce the rules posted at the top of the index.

I write many replies that are never posted. After considering things a few minutes I often decide that the ill-will the post will cause is not worth making the point. When you posted against live pigeon shooting on a thread about a clays game it was obvious you hadn't bothered to read the thread or taken time to reconsider the issue or other people. I believe you read the subject line on the index, punched down to the last page and pushed the "Reply" button and started typing. The tendency to reflexive reaction frequently turns out to be counter-productive to converting others to one's point of view. It also causes people to tend to look at the rest of such authors' posts with a skeptical eye.

This is a forum for gun owners and it is about firearms. We are all zealots here. We are vigilant. And we will be even if you are required to follow the rules and post about this subject in another section.

Which is supposed to be what this thread is about.


Best,

Mike

Mike:
I will PM you on pigeons.
Jim

I had no problem with the original posting here. And I have no problem with Dave moving it when someone apparently asked for rule compliance. I don't think this tempest in a teapot has much to do with vigilance about defending our rights.

Mike's right about this membership and this thread. (I've been an NRA member for 30 years.) I hoped it would die a few pages back, no one gained from it continuing, nor do I expect any value add from my post here. Except I really hope this gets me the last word.

Jay

This thread needs an epitaph.

Now I lay me down to sleep

Hush little baby don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beasts under your bed
In your closet in your head
Say your prayers little one
Don't forget my son
To include everyone

I tuck you in, warm within
Keep you free from sin
'Til the sandman he comes

Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight

Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
We're off to never-never land

Something's wrong, shut the light
Heavy thoughts tonight
And they aren't of Snow White

Now I lay me down to sleep
We're off to never-never land

Cast a cold eye
On life, on death,
Horseman, pass by!

Gnomon, you apparently never read about any of the ATF (now BATF) abuses which lead up to the eventual passage of the National Firearms Owners Protection Act. Barack Obama is hardly the first anti gun politician to come down the pike. While guys like you who have their heads buried in the sand are enjoying simply shooting and owning guns and thinking that makes you pro-gun, a minority have been doing the heavy lifting to keep the wolves at bay. It's almost inconcievable that we have gun guys here who do not even know about the anti gun efforts of billionaires George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. But long before they became major forces in the battle to kill the Second Amendment, we had a constant flow of high profile politicians and celebrities and well funded organizations doing their damndest to strip you of the right you enjoy and are completely unalarmed about losing.

AmarilloMike said earlier,
"Jim with all due respect most here are members of the NRA, certainly internet literate and capable of navigating to the news sources on the web."

And he went on to say,
"This is a forum for gun owners and it is about firearms. We are all zealots here. We are vigilant. And we will be even if you are required to follow the rules and post about this subject in another section."

With all due respect to Mike because I agree with 99% of his posts, I would say that way less than half of the guys here are members of NRA or in any way active in their support of gun rights and the shooting sports. I say this because of past threads both here and in Misfires where dozens of guys like Gnomon make excuses for their inactivity, for not joining NRA, and for continuing to support and re-elect avowed anti-gun politicians. They even go out of their way to insult and denigrate the ones who are on the front lines of a battle they seem almost completey unaware of. I no longer worry about alienating these guys, because they never were involved and most likely never will get involved. I'll go on to state that in addition to their lack of financial support or activism in support of the Second Amendment, many of the whiners and thread police here do not even contribute a few shekels to Dave to support this BBS.

I also agree with Mike that this is a double gun forum. But no one has explained yet to us how gun rights, which can eventually erode or remove our right to own and shoot doubles, is less relevant than a thousand other off-topic topics that run their course without a bit of protest. Hell, when there were some threads running in Misfires recently about Operation Fast and Furious, Last Dollar and a few others wanted to stop or censor the discussion there. Last Dollar asked who I was to tell him to simply not read a thread if it bothered him. He should read the last line of the rules for Misfires where one Dave Weber says "If you find the materials offensive, don't read it."

Homeless jOe said, "Any one that doesn't believe the Antis are nOt conspiring against the Legal Gun owners are dumb'r a box of rocks."

What's taken me a thousand words to say, jOe covered in one concise line. The legal gun owners he speaks of still includes double gun owners. There is no more appropriate place for gun rights postings than front and center where it might get the attention of visitors and ostriches who may occasionally take their heads out of the sand or elsewhere. I hope Dave agrees.

There are many intelligent, well spoken individuals on this board. Wish I was one of them.
That's exactly why I like jOe. Reminds me of my dad. Man of few words, a bit gruff, and would give you the unvarnished truth. Give it to you with both barrels.
And after all the foolishness of the last couple days I want everyone to know again, no hard feelings for ANYONE.
Bye the way-- NRA Patron Member and damn proud of it!

Keith, while I may disagree with the conspiracy theorists I am not ignorant of the issues and the real problems facing gun owners.

It is a fallacy to assume ignorance on the part of those who disagree.

I still don't give a damn what the British police do nor do I care if some "knob" can't take his forend off without breaking it and tries to turn that into some cause cèlébre.

And for the record I support the enforcement of existing gun laws and if some anus dealer sells handguns to felons he should go to the slammer.

That's a very good way to protect our legitimate rights.

Pardon me....only the ignorant could disagree.

Gnomon, what you miss is that the only thing gun laws do is inconvenience good, honest, citizens.

No gun law will or can keep deadly weapons out of the hands of those who intend to use them criminally.

Gun laws are a fraud and a failure everywhere, and in fact increase demand just like drug laws do.

Jones, I'm not missing anything. Lots of stuff inconveniences good honest hard-working law-abiding citizens. Traffic lights and speed limits to name just two.

You are absolutely correct that no law will ever keep a gun away from a criminal who really wants one. Nor will drug laws stop illegal drug usage.

Many gun laws are nothing but harassment - some stupid pol wants to win points and the result is cumbersome nuisance laws. These need to be gotten rid of.

But I like the laws that make it more difficult for felons to buy guns (however imperfect they may be). And I don't want to make it easy for somebody who just got paroled for an ax-murder to be able to buy a gun over the counter.

But maybe that's just me.

Since an ax is obviously his weapon of choice I think we need ax laws for people like him.

Here in Waterloo,Iowa we have had 2 people killed with bare hands in the last couple of years and that is not counting a baby or 2 killed by their parent.One of the adult deaths was unintentional as she was in the way when the perp wanted to beat on her boyfriend.

Quote:
"Keith, while I may disagree with the conspiracy theorists I am not ignorant of the issues and the real problems facing gun owners."
Excuse us:
This is no theory but well documented and established fact. It would really be in your best interest to check before you post something as off base as this. George Soros doesn't even attempt to dispute that his goal is to end civilian ownership of firearms period and he and his well funded groups work towards that goal on a daily basis. No conspiracy?? Yeah Right!
Jim

There is no doubt in my mind there is
a concerted effort on the part of many to take our guns. Even if it ever does come to pass, I think our government will quickly discover that enforcing that ban is going to be considerably difficut. Just a hunch.

Agreed - there is indeed an effort to take away guns or to severely restrict them.

There's also people who want to restrict voting rights; civil rights and condoms.

We are blessed in this country with opposing forces that like guns, like voting rights, like civil rights and condoms. It sort of cancels out.

Here in Canada, it has become clear that the objective of the gun licensing, registration and safe storage laws, along with the soft policies carried out by the organizations charged with enforcing those laws was to accomplish the following:

Stealthily ban specific guns over time to reduce the overall numbers in the public hands, while creating the least backlash from gun owners.

Make ownership a headache so owners would give up ownership.

Sway public opinion in every possible case by portraying all gun owners as a criminal who has just not yet committed the crime.

The point of all this was as a prelude to confiscation of all guns in private hands.

While we have made some progress as far as the repeal of the long gun registry goes, there is still much to be done.

For example, right now we have two cases before the courts that demonstrate the mindset of the antis.

The first is that of a rural homeowner, a firearms instructor, confronted by a firebomb attack on his home in the middle of the night and where the attack is videotaped by home security cameras. There is no argument about that. The homeowner responded by arming himself with his legally owned pistol and fired several shots in the air, scaring off his attackers.

The home owner was charged and has been brought to trial first for dangerous use of a firearm and when that proved un-winable he has been charged with unsafe storage, a criminal offense. The prosecution's evidence is that he was able to arm himself too quickly.

The trial has been held over several months after closing arguments because the judge felt the safe storage laws are so vague that all parties needed to study up on them. If that's the courts opinion of the clarity of the laws, how is the average citizen to figure it out.

The other case involves a gentleman who had his home safe broken into and emptied of firearms when he wasn't there. So he has been charged with unsafe storage. And I'm not talking about a locked cabinet, I'm talking about a serious safe.

My point being that vigilance is required. There is nothing the antis won't do or say, regardless how far from the truth, to effect their aim, the removal of firearms from all citizens.

It is no different in the USA.

Good Post Csnvasback:
And this is precisely why I put up with the grief I receive from some of those posting here. If we don't remain constantly vigilant the anti's will ride roughshod over us here as they have done elsewhere. Is the a "conspiracy" going on to accomplish exactly this.
Well I believe jOe got it right in just one sentence.
Unless Dave Weber instructs me to do otherwise I will continue to post anything related to attempts at gun restriction/confiscation in the mainstream of this forum. If anyone on here doesn't like it don't read it.
Jim

The following is a report from The National Post newspaper with a summary of events I was referring to in my recent post. I post it now to ensure anyone reading doesn't think I was exaggerating. There is also video of the actual event on youtube but it is beyond my skills to provide the link.


Quote:
WELLAND — Ian Thomson was jolted awake at 6:37 a.m. by the sound of explosions; outside his secluded farmhouse, three masked men were hurling fire bombs at his house while one bellowed: “Are you ready to die?”

Mr. Thomson was not.

A former firearms instructor, he instead called out a warning, took one of his several pistols, marched outside in his underwear and fired one shot into the ground and two into the trees in the direction of the men, who scurried away.

He then called 911 and waited more than 10 minutes for police while using a garden hose to douse flames lapping up his front veranda, his .38-calibre snub-nose stuffed into his sagging underwear.

The officers did not bring him salvation, however. Mr. Thomson was soon arrested and charged with four gun offenses.

On Monday, after becoming the focus of a national debate over the right of Canadians to defend themselves and the government’s attitude toward gun ownership, Mr. Thomson finally had his date in court.

[linked image]

The most serious charges against him — dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm – were quietly dropped by prosecutors in March, when Niagara Crown Attorney Tyler Shuster announced at a preliminary hearing that there was no viable prosecution.

“In Canada, a set of complex rules dictate when and how a person can defend themselves against threats from others. At a trial where self defence is raised, the Crown is required to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt,” Mr. Shuster said at the time.

Under the law, someone is justified in using force to repel an unprovoked and unlawful attack when the victim has a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. Courts, in previous cases, have settled that a victim under attack cannot be expected to fully reflect on the risk and weigh the exact measure of how much force might be justified.

The Crown cautioned: “This assessment applies to the particular circumstances of this case. Because each case is unique, with widely diverse and sometimes contradictory evidence, no broad policy statement is intended with respect to the use of firearms in the defence of one’s home.”

Prosecutors continue to press two charges of careless storage of a firearm against Mr. Thomson, to which Mr. Thomson pleaded not guilty on Monday.

That the shooting charges were dropped was not surprising. Even a police officer who responded to Mr. Thomson’s home on the outskirts of Port Colborne the morning of the incident on Aug. 22, 2010, was shocked at the violent attack on the house. There was little doubt of danger.

Shown video of the incident, caught on a system of 12 surveillance cameras around Mr. Thomson’s property, the officer saw the prowling masked men; saw them lobbing Molotov cocktails at the windows and doors of the home and at the kennel containing his dogs, one of which was slightly burned. She heard the profanities and threats.

“It was quite astonishing,” Niagara Regional Police Constable Darlene Millin testified.

The attack appears linked to a dispute with a neighbour that had been simmering for several years. When the neighbour’s chickens started coming onto his property, he warned his neighbours and then shot and killed a rooster, court heard.

Even with the reduced charges, Mr. Thomson’s case remains a flashpoint.

More than a dozen supporters were at court; some were friends, others strangers drawn by their interest in gun laws, including representatives of the National Firearms Association.

Flyers were distributed featuring a photograph of Mr. Thomson with the slogan: “We all have an unalienable right to protect our lives,” and calling on the government to enact clear “castle laws” granting citizens the right to protect from trespass and attack while inside their homes.

“This is a perfect example of how a law-abiding person who has been threatened and is under attack and tries to defend himself is being victimized again by these laws that are unjustified,” said Charles Zach, a field officer with the firearms association, outside of court.

“Police are instructed to charge everything they can when it comes to guns,” said the association’s Paul Lepinoy.

The Crown alleges Mr. Thomson had two loaded handguns in his bedside table before the attack.

“In my opinion,” Sergeant Richard Brouwer testified, “the weapons would have had to be readily available to Mr. Thomson,” to get to the door and fire them so quickly.

Mr. Thomson, casually dressed in blue jeans and a golf shirt, took to the stand. He spoke quietly, occasionally stroking his grey Tom Seleck moustache.

He testified he ran to his locked gun safe to get the weapon to defend himself. He was loading the gun when another firebomb came through his kitchen window.

“At that point, I had no choice,” he said. After his attackers appeared to flee he put out a fire with a hose and went back inside for a second gun, loaded it and put it on the bed.

“I didn’t know many criminals were out there and whether they were coming back,” he said. “My bedroom was going to be my last line of defence.”

Court watched a video of Mr. Thomson re-enacting his actions during the attack. It took him just 38 seconds to get and load his .38-calibre gun.

Four men were charged with arson following the firebombing. They have not yet faced trial. Last month, a neighbour was charged for harassing Mr. Thomson. That case has similarly not yet gone court.

Mr. Thomson’s trial continues Tuesday when he will be cross-examined by assistant Crown attorney Robert Mahler.

And here is a quote from another article in the same National Post newspaper referencing the other situation I described.

Quote:
Perhaps the most notorious example of police and Crown overzealousness in enforcing Canada’s existing gun laws is the case of Mike Hargreaves, a former Toronto-area gun-safety instructor and collector.

"Over the Christmas holidays in 2003, while Mr. Hargreaves was visiting his son in Florida, thieves worked to open the 770 kilogram concrete and steel safe he had had installed in his north Toronto apartment.

For nearly two days, burglars used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open the vault, before they could make off with 35 high-powered handguns and rifles worth more than $40,000.

Still, police decided the precautions Mr. Hargreaves had taken to protect his collection were inadequate. They obtained a warrant for his arrest on unsafe storage charges, which forced him to remain in Florida to avoid prosecution."

AFAIK he's still in Florida.

The antis have worked and will continue to work to create a climate where this type of behavior is deemed reasonable. Don't imagine they aren't trying to do the same south of the border. These are only the tip of the iceberg up here. There have been many more and there will be more to come until we get the current laws changed to line up with logic and property rights.

Much as I would prefer just to post and read about the guns we love, as a gun owner, interested in continuing to own guns and have my son own guns if he wants to, I feel we need to keep these issues front and center. Canadian guns owners were less than vigilant, like those in the UK and Australia, and look what happened.

I am unaware of any legislation to restrict voting or civil rights and of any national organizations with that as their reason for being. The same cannot be said of the right to own firearms.

Well Jim he already has:

"Misfires @ doublegunshop.com - All topics that do not belong in one of the other forums can be placed here: Politics, Gun Rights, Hunting Dogs, Non-Fine Firearms, Non-Firearms etc. Tirades and banters permitted so long as they remain cordial with no profanity, racial slurs and or other aggressive behavior towards groups or individuals. Threats, and or overt aggression and or stupidity will not be tolerated. No pornography or discussions of a sexual nature. In an effort to keep off topic posts out of the primary forums, I will give this forum a fairly wide berth so knock your-self out."

I added color, underline, bold, and italics to the "gun rights" part.

Most of us don't want this topic in this section of the BBS.

If we want to read these types of posts we can go to the MisFires section, per the rules of the BBS.

If you think someone else's thread in this section is off-topic feel free to ask Dave to move / remove it.

But we have to have some standards. I don't want to read through an index with threads about semi-autos, pumps, mammoth ivory, microwaves, tupperware etc... Sure I don't have read them but I would rather not have them at all in this section.

Best,

Mike

+10 But he is not going to quit. He has said several times that he is done with it...So much for his credibilty...

Lonesome
Buttering up jOe will not get you a pass with him. I tried.

Just to be clear, you feel that the rules of this Forum do not apply to you and you can blatantly disregard the established rules set forth by the owner?

What makes you so special?

Dave Weber has put together probably the best shotgun forum on the Internet.

Your disregard for his rules and his wishes is no different than a man ignoring a "No Trespass" sign.

It is clear that you have no repect for Dave or the terms of usage he has outlined on this forum.

I don't condone the racial slurs made here, but you brought this on yourself when you decided the rules didn't apply to you.

Chuck H

I know that ole' bird is to willey (sp?) for that. I'll take my lumps from him or anyone else for that matter. Like I said, he reminds me of my dad, and he was one tuff S.O.B. Might be my goal to give him a lump or two. I know JOe, keep dreamin' kid!

Indeed, this is a truly amazing forum - the depth of knowledge is wonderful. I unfortunately do not own any of the great American classic SxSs that get mentioned here often but still read the posts and learn a lot. One of these days...

Despite all the feathers this thread ruffled, I for one am glad that it occurred and caused so much input as through this thread my opinion of Jim has changed when he acknowledged that Democrats also support gun rights. I did not think he was capable of breaking the mold I put him in. I still don't agree with his politics and most of his beliefs, but thats what debating the issues is for. As for where these threads belong, that is up to Dave to decide and we should respect his rules. I know I check the misfires every time I check the board and like to post there. But all in all for me at least this was a good exercise.

nca225

That's what it's all about. I'll fight you tooth and nail from 9 to 5, but when that whistle blows I'll be the first to buy you a beer.

Chuck H

Why else do you think I started that thread on reference works? Could you imagine if I got on here and asked some dumb a** question? The horror!!!!

nca225:
I was born and raised into a working class Democratic househould. The Democrat mainstream view of gun rights was not an issue until the party was hijacked by the far left over the past 30 years.
My view on just about any issue hasn't varied much during my lifetime it's the Democratic Party that has veered clear to the left.
If that hadn't been the case I'd most likely still be registered as a Democrat. The first Presidental election I was eligible to vote in was Lyndon Johnson's and I voted for him.
Jim

I would have voted for Johnson as well had I been alive and eligible at the time. I do think its fair to say that both parties have evolved and grown away from their roots over time.

Democrat, Republican, whatever. It's all whooee anymore. I'm a little more sophisticated than being a one issue voter, but the first thing I look at is the candidates record on guns. I disagree with my congressman on just about every issue out there but he's staunchly pro gun and gets my vote. He's one of them dog gone Democrats too.

Ed Good, can you please post SOMETHING soon to draw some the flies off of this pile

Jmc

Good one. Even though I'm adding to it. It is getting a little deep. Wheewww.

jmc +10

Gnomon,I do not believe that you will find one guy here on either side of this issue who wants felons to be able to own firearms. Please read Canvasback's excellent posts about what the anti's have accomplished in Canada. If you take the time to learn about the goals and agenda of the anti-gun organizations and operatives in the United States, you can see that their vision is to take us down the same path as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. In truth, their vision goes further to a place where whole classes of firearms are immediately banned from use, possession and manufacture. We are not just talking about Black guns here. Jonathan Browning easily converted a Model 1894 Winchester lever gun to fire full auto at a cyclic rate of over 450 rounds per minute before the turn of the last century. So even that venerable deer rifle would be banned. The Double Gun you aspire to someday own would not be far behind. Barack Obama has supported legislation to ban the manufacture and posession of handguns and his voting record is 100% anti-gun, and that is meant to affect you and me, not just convicted felons. To suggest this is just a simple little conflict between opposing forces that just cancels out over time is very simplistic and naive. If all gun owners took that attitude, the pendulum would quickly swing in a direction that none of us would like.

Canvasback, thank you very much for taking the time to show those who have their heads in the sand how it is in Canada and the threats we face here if we are not vigilant. I know how hard you and many other Canadians are working to reverse the tide. I wish some folks here would take the time to learn that the two cases of law abiding gun owners getting hammered by the system you wrote about are just a small fraction of the abuses. We have similar cases here where anti-gun county prosecutors go after citizens who use a gun to defend themselves and their families. They are usually acquitted, but the huge legal costs are borne by the innocent gun owner.

What I will never understand is how any self respecting gun owner who claims to support the Second Amendment could read what you posted and think this is a subject that should always be placed on the back page. Clearly, there are many here who need to be reminded occasionally about the real threats we face. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theorists or folks who see black helicopters coming after them. These are easily verifiable facts that can be read in the Congressional Record and a thousand other credible sources.

I wouldn't want the subject of gun rights to dominate or take over the Firearms Forum any more than anyone else. My main reason for coming here is my interest in Double Guns. But we never got close to that scenario before there even was a Misfires section. Dave Weber asked for our opinion about this. It is no longer about whether or not Jim (Italiansxs) intended to stick his thumb in Dave's eye, or disregarded the rules in any more egregious manner than all of the others who have made off-topic posts and threads. Dave, I hope you'll agree. Those who disagree, I hope you'll go back and carefully re-read what Canvasback wrote. Although his hands are full trying to reverse the situation in Canada, he's taken the time to encourage all here to never allow that to happen to us.

I re-read Canvasback's post. I still prefer this topic in another section.

I don't know how you know there are many here that need to be reminded. I don't notice that there are. I don't know why you can't remind them in the MisFires section if they are willing to be reminded. If they are ignoring you they can ignore you here as well as they can elsewhere.

We like it better the way it is. That doesn't make us unaware or complacent or anti-gun rights. I repeat my Paul Revere analogy. Paul Revere was designated as the courier to spread the alarm. He was first there with the information. The things posted on this subject here are available many, many, many places, nearer first hand and sooner.

Have you petitioned Dave for a poll on this matter? I have mentioned it three times now. If Dave is willing you could make your arguments and we can decide. He let us decide some policy on the classified section.

Let me say if you do get a poll I think you are going to lose. And if someone put a gun to my head and made me bet $1000 of my money on what you believe I would bet you think you would lose the poll vote too.

Frankly one of the reasons I like this topic in another section is that I get tired of being harangued by people on my side of the issue. Others have expressed essentially the same sentiment.. Because I don’t want this discussed in this section I must be dumb or uninformed or unaware of reality or don’t know about the anti-gunners or what happened it England or Australia or Canada. But I do know about all those and I still prefer the topic in another section.

I leave the last word on this thread to others.

Best,

Mike

keith;
For the record: My intent here was never to "stick my finger in Dave's eye" or anyone elses eye for that matter.
My intent was and is to solely report upon impending legislation and other issues that could imperil our right to keep and bear arms.
We should all be thankful for the Internet as the mainstrean news media doesn't believe in a level playing field here and has NO intention of letting our side of this issue being fairly reported.
Nor do I believe this issue should dominate discussions here. As a matter of fact; If we get am appropriate change in administration come November this issue could go back on the back burner and no one would be more thankful than me.
In the meantime I think vigilence is the prudent approach and we must remain united.
I'm going to end this with some quotes from Patrick Henry:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
― Patrick Henry

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
― Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
― Patrick Henry

“Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”
― Patrick Henry

I'm betting that Obama can quote Jomo Kenyatta and the koran with equal facility.

Mike, I never even alluded to the possibility that you personally are unaware or unwilling to confront anti-Second Amendment initiatives. But it is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read all 18 pages of this thread that many here are. I don't even harbor the fantasy that Gun Rights threads would cause any conversion among them. But I don't think it would hurt a thing for the many folks who visit this site and seldom or never post to see the issues and know we are engaged and involved. The petty bickering never had to happen. But that happens even in Misfires. I said it several times already. If folks who don't care for these subjects simply did what I do when I see a thread I don't like: Don't click on it, don't go back to it, don't read it... then it would fade into the archives very quickly. But some folks just like to piss and moan. Our friend Last Dollar has probably brought this thread back to the top of the charts more than anyone else. Like a moth to a flame even though he says it burns his wings. Amazing.

I would love to see a poll on this matter, but with one condition. I would like to see voting limited to only those who actually contribute money to Dave Weber for the purpose of maintaining this site. Too many with zero skin in the game, here or in the fight to maintain our rights, flap their jaws and try to thwart debate. A poll tax, if you will. Even then, I acknowledge there is a possibility my side could lose. Many of our International members might not be interested just because our Second Amendment may be of little concern to them. But I would still maintain that the Gun Rights issue never did come close to dominating this forum and what little there is would hardly inconvenience either International members or U.S. members who simply don't click on those threads. Perhaps we could be required to put an asterik in the subject line so everyone would know that it was one of those nasty offensive *Gun Rights* topics. Then you wouldn't inadvertantly click on it and become offended.

But on the other hand, when Dave Weber made his post, he stated he wanted to let this run so he could form his own opinion. I'm sure he's noticed that the other Firearms websites with rigid rules and Gestapo like moderators who don't give members the same latitude he gives to us are not nearly as successful. I'm equally sure that if he wanted a poll, he would have started one right there.

Wow ... there haven't been that many posters in this thread. And it's "blatantly obvious" to everyone that many of these posters are unaware of the gun rights info you're compulsively repeating? Well, for the record, you've told me nothing -- zero -- that I didn't already know. I was glad to see Jim's info about the Starbucks boycott. But not the over and over again self-righteous lecturing rest of it. My name is on the contributor list, and I vote for gun rights posts to be in the other section.

Jay

Jay,

I'm really happy you are not one of the guys who are ignorant of or oblivious to Second Amendment threats. I don't want anyone who is aware of these things to think for a second that I am being critical of them. I went back and note that you too have posted your strong opinion "compulsively" several times.

Welcome to the "over and over again self righteous" club. There's a lot of us in here. Members shall be required to carry strong opinions, a thick hide, and hopefully, a sense of humor.

keith

Italian SxS

Where did you get those Patrick Henry quotes from, the NRA guide on how to convince gun owners the bogie man is after his guns? Was Patrick Henry at Valley Forge? Trenton? Yorktown? Probably at the library. I may just be a blue collar, rable rousing redneck , but It's the millions more just like me that 'git er done'. Mailing my check today, I vote move to misfires. Go ahead, put me on ignore too.

Keith - I shortened your post for the sake of brevity - no need to make people scroll thru it. Thank you for taking the time to respond to what you perceive of my "ignorance" but I can assure you that I have taken the time to learn about the "antis" - it's just that I reach different conclusions and behave and vote differently than you. I have no delusions that there are not people who want to disarm us. Canvas' post was interesting and a good explication of a Canadian's perspective but as a hunting visitor to Canada I have always had an easy time including air travel with my guns. I realize it isn't the same and not what Canvas was talking about but nonetheless that is my experience.

In the past few years (yes, during Obama's administration) we have experienced a resurgence of gun rights and the only gun hysteria seems to have come from the far right. We are not facing a "gun-grabbing" crisis in the coming election - we are facing a crisis where the presidency of the United States might be bought and paid for by 3 or 4 people, some of whom have loyalties to other sovereign nations. That scares me - not some noisy anti-gun people.

Most of the people I hunt and shoot with are pretty liberal. And we are serious gun owners. I own 8 SxS shotguns, all European; (one of these days I might get a Parker) and 3 rifles, also European, and 3 handguns. Despite stringent gun laws the Europeans make some damn fine guns and rifles.

So Keith, I am active in the shooting world and do know about the politics of gun control and am not the babe in the woods that you suppose me to be.

Anyway, I do thank you for the time you took to comment on my post!

You may win that bet! All it means is that he's well educated. Although I cannot quote Kenyatta, if I try hard enough I can dredge up some Koranic quotes from some 30 years ago when I read it.

Given the times we live in I would hope that my President is familiar with both.

I want to and will respect the wishes of both Dave, because he has created this forum for us all, as well as all the members. I am posting in this thread because I believe the Canadian experience, like the British and Australian, should be a cautionary tale for Americans. I strongly believe that we got to where we got to in Canada because too many of us put our heads in the sand, myself included, until it was too late.

I'm a bird hunter, what do the hand gun regulations have to do with me? I like old shotguns, what do black guns have to do with me?

It took a lot to wake us all up. And it has taken a lot more to start to roll back some of the most obvious foolishness. What I see often posted is the idea that "It can't happen here" or "It's not my kind of guns that are the problem." That there are checks and balances that protect you and your interests. I think, in different ways, Lonesome Road's and Gnomon's recent posts exemplify that approach.

I speak from personal experience, so I admit to having skin in this game. Briefly, I have spent the last two years under a court order to have all my guns removed from my home. It has been lifted effective April 15, 2012. Why you might ask? Very simple. I caught my wife of 17 years in an affair with a close friend of mine. We separated. To gain advantage in court room/back room negotiations, her lawyer described me as a potential threat. No evidence, no discussion, no hearing, just accusation and action by the courts. It has been lifted because we came to a separation agreement, not because there is any evidence I now longer pose a potential threat, but because it no longer has use as a tactic by my ex wife and her lawyer. There is not one single shred of evidence that could portray me as unreliable, unstable or untruthful. I have been a gun owner for almost 40 years without any incident of any type. I have been employed by the same firm, mine, for the last 35 years. The worst offense I am guilty of in my life is speeding. But in Canada, the gun owner is a bad man, a crime, a shooting spree waiting to happen.

The main internet gun forum in Canada is called gunnutz and because it includes members from all disciplines and covers all possible subjects relating to firearms, it has brought gun owners together POLITICALLY in a way no other organization has. Gunnutz is unfunded, except as required to keep it up on the internet. It is not a lobby group per se. We have nothing like the NRA in terms of a strongly financed, powerful lobby group.

The kind of action I have described against gun owners, and far worse, happens multiple times daily in Canada. It is not reported in the MSM. Without Gunnutz, even those of us in the community would have no sense of just how widespread the abuse is, no idea how skewed the behavior of our police, crown attorneys and judges are towards gun owners. We would only have the vague notion that the MSM is against us.

Gunnutz was also a clearing house for information during our last federal election about what we could do as individuals, as it was happening, to help defeat the most vocal anti gun Members of Parliament. Mobilizing and organizing volunteers during the actual election campaign, aligned not specifically to a party, but to the outcome we all aim for. And it worked!

The first section of Gunnutz is titled FIREARMS POLITICS and the first forum in that is FIREARMS POLITICS NEWS ARTICLES. The positioning means it is the first thing you see when you log in and , because of it's positioning, has become almost required reading for all members. Yes, we can scroll down to the real area of firearms or hunting interest we logged on for, but human nature is what it is.

My recommendation to Dave would be that a new, separate "firearms political news" forum be created, as he has in the past when there has been enough interest in a particular subject, and that it be the first on the list. Not have the subject buried in misfires at the bottom of the page.

My main point in my posts on this subject would be that without a clearing house of information, you may be surprised at the actual state of affairs. Accurate knowledge is never a bad thing.

You have the benefit of the second amendment. However I think that also creates a false sense of security. Rest assured, they are coming for your guns, by whatever tactics they can muster. I think that is what so many miss. The antis are not giving up. Their reasoning is emotional, not grounded in fact, and so can never be swayed. They are true believers in the righteousness of their efforts. And like so many true believers, utterly wrong.

Good luck!

Also, I sort of apologize for being long and wordy. I just happen to like writing! Here is where I would insert a smilie face if I knew how.

Keith, I think you misjudge "many" members of this board. I also think members shouldn't have to parade their credentials as gun rights supporters to avoid being labelled ignorant and oblivious for expressing a different perspective.

As for over and over, when repeated posts say essentially the same thing, I'd like to see fewer words in successive posts. Eventually we're down to "I disagree", and then maybe the thread ends.

Jay

My point was that Obama's father was close with Kenyatta and that Kenyatta and the entire Mau Mau movement was "helped" by the Marxists.I have my doubts about Mr. Obama's intellect when he did not even know what a "corpsman" was.

I don't think folks get worked up about preaching to the choir. Seems to me, that there are gun owning liberals whose only contribution to the issue is, 'I'm not worried, they'll never do it here, things are better than ever, they'll leave my double alone, etc.'. Easy to get stirred up when that mentality reaches across the isle and says we have common ground, let's stand as one. Sorry for revisiting the misfire in some one else' house.

Canvasback:
Your post is one of the most Telling I've ever read to support the position that potential firearms legislation is and has to be a mainstream topic and not something relegated to the back page.
I think we're constitionally protected againt the type of seizure you've been under but, with the abuses to our Constitution, I'm seeing by the current administration I'm not so sure.
With your permission, I'd like to repost this in other forums.
Jim

Jim, thanks for the comments and the request. I would like to consider your request.

I feel somewhat among friends here and shared personal details. I would like to consider how much farther those details may be spread and whether I am okay with that, fully realizing it is on the net and it's possible to copy without doing me the kindness of requesting my permission, as you have.

There's not a soul here who's for gun control or who doesn't recognize the need of vigilance to protect our interests. Inviolable or unalienable constitutional rights on paper bear no resemblance to practice here or there. Jim recognizes it above as we all do. Whatever Dave does with this dissolving phantasmagoria, my hope is that there's a cleanup of all the political partisanship and slogans, jingoism, imputing of motives and citizenship, and it's packed it off to another place on the board. I'm here to learn about doubles. I don't give a tinker's dam about someone's father or politician unless it relates to gun provenance or some activity in the shooting sports.

Had to look that one up King!
Jim

Phantasmagoria ( American pronunciation (help·info), also fantasmagorie, fantasmagoria) was a form of theatre which used a modified magic lantern to project frightening images such as skeletons, demons, and ghosts onto walls, smoke, or semi-transparent screens, frequently using rear projection. The projector was mobile, allowing the projected image to move and change size on the screen, and multiple projecting devices allowed for quick switching of different images. Invented in France in the late 18th century, it gained popularity through most of Europe (especially England) throughout the 19th century.

Gnomon, I used your own thoughts and words to draw my conclusions about you. It was you and only you who alluded to the belief that our pro-second amendment stance would only help felons to acquire guns. The resurgance of gun rights during the current administration has nothing to do with support from Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, George Soros, et al. That regaining of lost ground has come from folks who put boots on the ground and fought for it and funded the fight. You and your kind are not among those. And The only credit you can give your 100% anti-gun President is being smart enough to hold back until he is a lame duck with no fears of losing re-election. He has laid the groundwork for attacks on gunowners in the future with his judicial appointments. No need to rehash that. You see no faults and no problems because so far, you have not been affected.

The exact same personal situation that Canvasback related to us about losing all of his guns due to a divorce situation happened to my sister-in-laws' ex-husband. She had a PFA taken out on him after she made a false claim of domestic violence. The county sherriff also came and gave him 10 minutes to gather some belongings and vacate the house they shared which had been in his family for over 150 years. I learned years later that the claim was false because she herself told me. Just a simple thing like your wife making a false claim tomorrow could change your whole situation in the blink of an eye. He lost his guns, including several doubles, and the right to shoot and hunt. If he had been a bowler or a golfer, he would not have lost the right to pursue his hobbies. You seem... no, you are oblivious to these attacks on gunowners. After all, it hasn't happened to you and your mostly liberal hunting buddies. Even after reading and hearing of these abuses, you will still dig your heels in and support candidates who make them happen. You won't change until it happens to you. Then it will be too late.

You say you worry about a crisis where the presidency might be bought and paid for by 3 or 4 people, some with loyalties to other sovereign nations. Talk about wild conspiracy theories. Please tell us who these evil Publicans are. I'll bet Bush and Cheney are right there in the thick of it. What we do know is that this will be the first election where one candidate will likely exceed spending over a billion dollars on an election. That candidate will be the Democrat Barack Obama, who incidentally got more Wall Street and big business backing than anyone else in 2008. That wouldn't explain the bulk of TARP money going to big banks, insurance and car companies, and green energy campaign contributors, would it?

Jay, I respectfully disagree with your thought that I misjudge that many members of this board, and many gun owners in general, are uninformed about threats to gun rights and disengaged when it comes to fighting to thwart those threats. I come to those conclusions from their own words and deeds. It was not you who said you are a strong supporter of gun rights for 7 decades, yet don't even know who George Soros is. So I wasn't speaking of you in particular. Do I need to go back through this thread and many old threads to quote similar evidence to support my position? You've read them. Why would you deny they happen? I can repeat them if you'd like, but you want brevity and you want this thread to end.

In truth, I don't wish to place myself on any pedestals here. Yesterday, I filled out my ballot for NRA Board of Directors elections. As I read the bios and resumes of the candidates, frankly, I felt a little embarassed that I haven't accomplished near as much for gun rights as the least of the candidates. My intent is to motivate rather than alienate, and when I say we collectively need to do more, that includes me. Some will grumble that I pushed them away rather than encouraged them. I will still maintain that 99.9% of those guys never were involved in the fight and never will be. Their actions speak volumes.

Canvasback, thanks again for taking the time to try to educate your gun owning brothers in the U.S. about what can and does happen. It took some guts to relate your own tragic situation. Please don't be discouraged that it will fall upon some deaf ears. There is nothing we can do but fight harder to compensate for those who refuse to see the battle. Your words are powerful and thought provoking.

As to whether we vote on where to put these types of threads, I will only say that the final results would only reflect the current beliefs of the voters. It wouldn't necessarily be what was best for gun owners or this BBS. And it's funny that some who want this section to be pure double guns have posted or participated in threads entirely unrelated to the subject many times. Do I need to give names and dates? I can do that. That evidence alone could go on for dozens of pages. More "do as I say, not as I do" behavior. Obama won the last election by a healthy margin and we have to live with that fact. But how many here would admit publicly that that voting result was good for us or the nation?

Please explain.

I do want this thread to end. But I have a hard time not responding to inaccurate representations of others' posts. Keith, my comment was about how you judged "many" members of this board, made no reference to gun owners in general. And look again at what precedes Gnomom's post about felons obtaining guns: he responded to a post that appeared to favor -- without qualification -- eliminating all gun ownership restrictions.

This morning, early, to catch a certain tide phase, 11 men got together at our launch ramp to take some measurements and work on a plan. Before we got started, I got their attention and asked some questions: 1. How many of us are gunowners in the USA? Nine. How many belong to the NRA? Four (including one non gun owner). How many support our second amendment rights? ELEVEN. How many of you are familiar with George Soros? Two.
Useing Keiths criteria, nine of the eleven are not qualified to support our gun rights..Is this what we want?

Keith in the middle of this thread Jim said he was going to post gun-rights in this section regardless of policy. Did you read that? Many of the scoldings you are giving us are because of our responses to that post.

I suppose that voting on any subject doesn't necessarily give the very very best possible outcome but it is a rational method of settling issues and creating peace. Do you think that settling things by voting is a bad idea in general or just on this board.

I have had threads moved. Others here have had threads moved. If you believe a post in this section is off topic feel free to report it.

And for the umpteenth time this a forum for gun owners and it is about firearms. We are zealous. We are vigilant. We are NRA members.

There are many threads in the Misfire section that start out as gun rights, wind into idealogy, then political parties, some use the phrase "the Kenyan" to identify the president, and then arguments about whether we can remove him from office for being born out of the country. Aren't you the one who refers to President Obama as "The Kenyan". Don't you have dozens of posts about the conspiracy to cover up his birth place. If not I apologize for mixing you up with someone else.

I don't want that discussion in this section. Most of us don't. If ya'll start posting gun rights threads here that "Kenyan" discussion will be here too. And gun rights posts will continue to be reported because they will have devolved into politics and conversations about birth conspiracy.

I guess we could then have another multipage thread sustained by the two or three of you sustaining this one about how politics needs to be in the main section because it is directly connected to gun rights.

I concede the point that I had, in a previous post, left the last word to others and didn't. Of course this post won't be the last either.

I am delighted to report that I am going to spend the next few days running my dogs in a field trial. Perhaps it will lift my cranky mood. Apparently my soon-to-be absence is improving my wife's mood as I can hear her in the next room happily singing. I don't expect to have internet access.


Best,

Mike

Mike and others make the point perfectly why partisan politics should not be in this forum. Citizens rarely are one-issue voters. The GOP primaries seem otherwise with voters preferring making a point to electability---for now.

I've been eligible to vote for 60 years. Our majority Conservative Party will get rid of the long-gun registry next month. I won't support the party for other reasons. I never voted Liberal. I'm anti the antis at the grassroots level.

The former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, knowing how I feel about some of his party's policies, asked me to be his eyes and ears in our region. I do that because governments that don't know govern ineffectively.

The politician and I share a mutual respect. I also respect Canada's institutions. I don't think Americans are all that much different generally, in their hearts, in what they want for their country. Cheap shots on this board shouldn't be part of it.

King, you make some excellent points, both in your most recent post and in most others from you I have read, in this thread and others. I particularly agree with the idea that few citizens are simply one issue voters. Most of us want good government with all that implies.

I believe we all share a love of fine firearms and we all are concerned, at some level, that we will be able to continue to enjoy them, without the needlessly heavy hand of the state interfering.

Would that we see ourselves as others see us.

On here we have, for the most part, only the written word by with to form our conclusions about the other members posting and their ideas. The best, most persuasive posts I ever read are those that offer knowledge and insight and avoid personality. It doesn't seem to matter the subject. You seem to exemplify that approach.

Sometimes it's seems this form of communication too easily becomes a "type and hit send" rather than a thoughtful exposition of ideas.

Thanks for your contributions.

When Chuck H came out to hunt with us this season, he stayed in a bunkhouse on a ranch owned by a very good friend of mine. She is a Liberal Democrat, a Lawyer, and a former environmental lobbyist in Washington. She has a CCW and carries a S&W model 36, all the time. We certainly dont want her on our side of the 2nd Amendment, do we? Or do we?

King and canvasback

I too want everything good government implies. The congressman I vote for is a liberal, while I'm somewhat conservative. I hate these lables. But I think it was Jim who posted a link on another thread or I read it somewhere, I don't know, on some Syrian who stated something to the effect that they used to think Americans were silly about the second amendment and how now he realizes that maybe we're not. All those other things don't matter if you can't back it up with force if need be. So I hold my nose and pull the lever for the liberal Democrat that supports my right to own a gun.

When I made the original post about the anti's planned protest at Starbucks on Valentines Day it was intended to be informational period. I expected most members here to read it make a mental note and pass on probably without comment. The firestorm of protest kicked off here came as a surprise to me and I expect many others were surprised as well.
While I respect most of the points of view here I cannot agree with those whose opinion is 2nd Amendment rights discussions and attacks should be relegated to the Misfires Section . Gun Control and any attempts at gun control are at the core of our hobby and discussions of such attempts don't belong in an offshoot area such as "Misfires".
With all due respect to Dave Weber; the very title of the "Misfires" Section gives the impression that this issue is of little importance.
If we don't actively stand up for our 2nd Amendment rights and keep each other informed as to attacks on this right we will ultimately pay the price as has been the case in other Countries.
Jim

I agree.

Amarillo, how is Crossfire ?

How did you find out I was scheduled? That was supposed to be top secret.

How is "Saturday Night Live"

All the best,

Mike

Don't be so sure about the lack of one issue voters.

I suppose I'm one, and I know quite a few of us who are.

The gun rights issue transcends all other political concerns for the simple reason that without a strong second amendment, the other amendments too will fall.

If a candidate for office does not support my individual right to own the kind, type, and quantity of firearms that I choose I listen no further to that person. It's not like politicians are in short supply. Find one who values YOUR rights, and vote accordingly.

The discussion belongs here as much as anywhere free people discuss their concerns about the future. Sharing information about this hobby includes ways to assure it's available to others in the future. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Rereading this entire thread got me thinking a little on why we have the 2nd amendment, but I don't want to add to this thread. If interested check out the misfires board.

10 or 11 days ago, I was in La Paz, attending the retirement party of my good friend Luis. He retired as a high ranking office of the Mexican Federal Police. After a great dinner, 5 or 6 of us were enjoying brandy and Cuban cigars on the patio. We talked about what guys talk about, hunting, fishing, women, politics and......Gun control. I asked Luis about the very restrictive laws in Baja Sur. "Its not working, the bad guys get all the guns they want". read that again please.."its not working". BUT, Luis was a Mexican Federal Police Officer, categorized by people on this board as corrupt, lazy, incompetent. So: We dont want him agreeing with us, do we? or Do we?
The point of my last and I mean last, three posts is that we cant insult, demean, vilify, anyone who believes in the protection of our 2nd amendment rights, because they dont fit into some category of correctness. And thats what Italian sxs and his talking parrots Keith and Craig are doing. It is almost as if their purpose is to create dissent, drive away supporters. This thread has done nothing to further second amendment support. It has been divisive, created a lot of ill will. It has been filled with fantasies, misinformation and in some cases outright lies. Like Mike, I want it to go away. I give you my promise, I wont even look at it again. And like Mike, I am gone for a bit. Weatherman says calm seas for the next 4-5 days. I and some good friends are launching a full scale offensive on Big Yellowtail and White sea bass. At top tide on the morning, we are off. FYI: I have been defined by one of the parrots, as Racist, Liberal, and ignorant.And pushed aside because I dont know who George Soras is...The first 3 are lies, and the 4th? I still dont know who he is and dont give a shit..

Yeah, the 2nd Amdmt ain't so you can go hunting or target shooting, nor is it so you can 'defend your home'. It's all about that "...by the people, for the people..." stuff.

care to elaborate?

We tend to forget that there was no national armory during the revolutionary war and people often used what they had at home. I am also aware that we weren't all a nation of "Hawkeyes" during this period.I am also aware that once you got well away from the big population centers,Philly, Boston,Charlotte,etc.,you were probably in wilderness and needed to be competent with a gun and self sufficient to survive.

I hope I can respond to all who disagree with me and not forget anyone. But I'd first like to point out... again... ad nauseum..., that it makes no problems at all when there is a subject you don't like if you simply don't click on it or don't read it. As for gun rights subjects sometimes devolving into heated disagreements, I would point out that there are also heated disagreements over lead shot, minimum barrel thickness, stockmakers' talents, shotgun dealers' integrity, case hardening techniques, etc. Some of these disagreements get fairly heated. Some that have nothing to do with politics or gun rights get so heated that our host has decided to lock them down and end the bickering. Most run their course without any lectures on civility from Nova Scotia.

AmarilloMike, you had a thread right here on page one back in November about a certain guy who began posting a bunch of crazy, but definitely gun related threads. Your thread was not gun related. It was intended to prod Dave into banishing this certain individual. It was a repetitive drumbeat with other members, myself included, piling on. It went on for days and I don't recall even one person who posted in it talking about double guns. By your own definition of what belongs here, it did not belong here. You certainly knew the rules because you have repeated them several times. But you did exactly what Jim did and went ahead and bent the rules. I agreed with your topic, and told you so at the time, but technically, according to you, it should have been in Misfires.

That was the only thread here I have ever seen that went beyond being moved or simply locked down. The entire thing was unceremoniously purged from the system. I note that while this piling on was occurring, King Brown did not once post anything about civility... Last Dollar or Gunflint Charlie did not post anything about lack of brevity or repetition on your part. No one was calling for an end to the festivities or crying that it was off topic. None of my present critics was defending the subject of your thread or feigning disgust or disappointment over the the perjoratives or name calling he endured.

I find this lack of consistency somewhat hypocritical. Actually, it is very hypocritical. It is Hypocritical with a capital H. We'll just call it the H word. In fact, that is what got me started on this current thread in the first place. So one more time with feeling... A thousand off topic topics get posted here with zero problems, but Jim's Starbucks post gets bounced. He asks our host, in a polite manner, "why?". Then he gets stampeded for having the gall to publicly ask the question. Many of those who stampeded over him are just as guilty of starting off topic threads, contributing to off topic threads, or straying off topic within threads that started out on topic. Most have participated in political or gun rights threads both here and in Misfires. They say they don't like these types of topics, yet they are drawn like a Moth to a flame no matter where they are posted, here or in Misfires. I know I shouldn't call names, but if this is not hypocritical, what the hell is it? When lectures on civility are very selective in whom they are heaped upon, isn't that a hypocritical backdoor approach and a thinly veiled insult?

Most of the folks who insist that the politics and gun rights threads are devisive and do not belong here routinely participate in those threads when they are in Misfires. If they are offensive when they are on page one, how are they OK on the back page? You've said yourself that they are still readily accessible. What difference does it make then? Does anyone bleed less when they feel offended in Misfires? Does anyone bleed anywhere? Of course, some others try to censor these threads or end them no matter where they land. I am trying hard not to use that H word.

I have no problem that you feel compelled to return to this topic after saying you were done. I will not question your credibility for doing so as Last Dollar did when Jim left the topic and then returned. One does wonder why Last Dollar made a big whining issue about Jim's return, but is silent about your return. I hate to use that H word again... but geez! Do you think I should call Last Dollar your Parrot because he agrees with you? I would probably be accused of devisive name calling and lacking in civility. Only certain people named Last Dollar are allowed to do those things. I would probably be pushing folks away. Maybe I should just be nice and call folks WOPS. Damn, I keep wanting to use that H word.

Chuck H, to explain the statement I made about voting for Obama... what I meant was that he won by a legitimate majority vote. We are stuck with him at least until Jan. 2013. Yet probably 95% of the members here would say (publicly at least, though some appear to be closet Obama supporters )that his presence in the White House is not a good result for gun owners or Second Amendment security. I guess I could have worded that a bit differently. I was trying to tell Mike that a vote on keeping gun rights topics in the DoubleGun BBS would be similar to that. It might not be a majority position at the time of the balloting, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for the board or the security of the Second Amendment. To answer Mike about whether or not I believe in voting... yes I do think free and fair elections are a good thing. But Obamas' election is proof that maybe voters should meet some I.Q. requirement before they can vote. At very least, they should pay taxes and have some skin in the game. Same here. Actually, what I got from Dave Weber's reply was that HE wished to let this go and then make a decision. So it is Mike who is pushing for balloting... not Dave or me. I have been misquoted and mis-characterized and accused of spreading absolute falsehoods about threats to gun rights, so I'm not so sure about the I.Q. level of some of the would be voters.

Mike, Jim said that he would continue to post gun rights threads in this forum UNLESS DAVE WEBER INSTRUCTS HIM TO DO OTHERWISE. You conveniently left out that qualifier which I emphasized. Please don't lecture me about the printed rules. Almost all of us have in some way, shape, or form, gone or strayed off topic, and thus, violated the printed rules. This includes you. So you can chill on the oft repeated, "this is a forum for gunowners, and it is about firearms. We are Zealous. We are vigilant. We are NRA members."

To be accurate, you should say, "Mostly, this is a DoubleGun BBS. But sometimes we talk about dogs and trucks and pump guns, and game recipes and lots of other stuff. Most of the time, this is OK, but sometimes, we must act deeply offended and get all bent out of shape. Some of us are zealous. Some are vigilant, but many admittedly are not and they just let the chips fall where they may when it come to gun rights, again, by their own admission... not because Keith put them in some ficticious box. And statistically, about 1 out of 8 or 9 of us are NRA Members." Not the 4 out of 11 that Last Dollar cited. He didn't say if he was one of those 4 of 11, did he? He did say one of the four was not a gun owner, so it's down to a 3 out of 11 chance. I'm not about to ask. None of my business. I just know that 4.5 million NRA members have been shouldering the load for well over 40 million gun owners. Just saying you support the Second Amendment is little more than lip service. We're probably all against Breast Cancer, but just saying so will never fund a cure. Saying you support the Second Amendment and then voting for candidates who are out to destroy that right is irresponsible crazy talk. And for a "supporter of the Second Amendment" to say he doesn't give a shit who George Soros is... well, that is about like hearing Franklin Roosevelt say he doesn't give a shit who Adolf Hitler or Emporer Hirohito is. Just Brilliant! Just what I'd expect.

Keith,
Your post that I questioned came across as it was a good thing for this country that Obama was elected.

My first thought was that would be like saying it's a good thing to get cancer so you can get in the fantastic new cancer wing of the hospital.

I hope you meant that it's a good thing we have an election process, regardless of the fact that we sometimes will elect someone that isn't good for our country. I would agree with that.

Chuck, it should be possible to disagree with a political position and not be excoriated.

For all you sing;e-issue voters, gun rights have been expanded; for all others we as a nation are far better off than we were when Obama took office.

Now all we have to do is avoid getting dragged into a war with Iran.

Even Pat Buchanan complains about the Washington crowd that is beating war drums to get us embroiled in another mid-east war.

Chuck, That is what I meant, but even when Obama was elected, I said, "No one man can destroy this country in four years." I still want to believe that, but he's sure put a serious hurtin' on it that may take decades to repair. I'm sure most in the West thought free and fair elections in Palestine was a good thing... until the Hamas won. I'm glad you brought it up so I could clarify things.

And how, pray tell, does Obama get credit for the areas where gun rights have been expanded? What pro gun thing has he said or done? What pro-gun Bill has he signed? What pro-gun things did his Attorney General say in their Amicus Curiae brief submitted for the Heller case before the Supreme Court? When Obama took office, gas was a buck a gallon cheaper and unemployment was at least two percent lower. What are you smoking?

More proof of the need for I.Q. tests for voters...

NCA,
An armed public is a dangerous public...to a tyrannical government. I beleive this was the context of the second amendment.

Unemployment rates have steadily declined during BO's administration: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

I did not give Obama credit for expanding gun rights, I simply observed that they have expanded during his administration. So if you are complaining about this outcome, why?

And how are gas prices related to this? Try looking at refining data. That's where much of the answer lies.

Wouldn't it have be fairer or more accurate to say that US gun rights have expanded despite the policies of the Obama administration.

If the subject at hand is the effectiveness of the current administration i.e. "we as a nation are far better off than we were when Obama took office." context is important because this is a somewhat subjective subject.

However it is clear to all that gun rights in the US have expanded DESPITE the policies of the current administration, pointing to a LACK of effectiveness of that same admninistration, at least on this subject..

One thing for sure. Obama has been the best gun and ammunition sales incentive ever. It's the one business that's booming.

What's sacred about constitutional rights? Why do we go on about it so much? Violation of constitutional rights goes on all the time. They're always before Supreme Courts to arbitrate. Trampling blatantly continues in spite of their rulings to cease and desist. Sure, we hold our constitutions dearly to our ideals but pro- and anti-gun control advocates use them to support opposing positions. Some of us are comforted by references to our constitutions although the evidence shows clearly that societies make of them what they will.

Keith:
Are you implying that some of the members here may be stretching their purported support for the 2nd Amendment a bit?
A have a quick story for everyone that goes back to the 2008 elections.
Harry Mitchell, a Liberal Democrat, won the Congressional seat in my district. After he had been in office for awhile I emailed him and asked him to state his position on the 2nd Amendment.
He sent me back a glowing response indicating he was a strong life long supporter of our rights to keep and bear arms.
I then emailed him back and stated if that was the case why wasn't he one of the 60+ Democrats who had sent Obama a letter indicating they would oppose any effort on his part to re-enact the "Assault Weapons" Clinton era ban.
The silence from Mitchell's office was very telling.

King:
I don't know how Canadian's feel about their Constitution but I can pretty much assure you that the majority of Americans feel that our Constitution is in fact "Sacred" and 2nd only to the Bible in terms of importance.
Jim

This is certainly one way to look at it but I think it speaks to the overall system of check and balances and separation of branches.

It is disingenuous (at least in my opinion) to "blame" Obama for the economy (ignoring that it has been recovering for the past several years) and then not credit him when gun rights are expanded.

That is selective attribution. It's the final outcome that counts.

It is easy to identify errors and mistakes but when we consider that the economy was in free-fall when Obama took office and it now looks like we have averted a full-blown depression I think it's safe to say that "we as a nation are far better off..."

Gnomon, I was specifically and only referring to the inclusion of improvements of gun rights as being attributable to the current administration. I was making no comment about the economy, good or bad.

I would agree that the economic problems faced by the US during his term had their origins far earlier than when Obama got onto the scene. My opinion is there is a direct line back to the policies of the Clinton administration. Just as I might agree that whatever economic improvement or decline that has taken place in the last three years has only been marginally affected by the policies of the current White House. It is a much larger issue than that.

I would respectfully disagree however, that, economically speaking, as a result of the Obama administration, you are "as a nation are far better off..."

But time will tell on that.

Quote:
"It is disingenuous (at least in my opinion) to "blame" Obama for the economy (ignoring that it has been recovering for the past several years) and then not credit him when gun rights are expanded."

Believe it or not I'm going to agree with you but NOT the reason you made this statement
A sitting President is,for all practical purposes, unable to exert much if any control over the economy. The economy ,as a rule, reacts slowing to changes.
For example the tax reform that was instituted under Reagan really didn't kick in until Clinton took office and that was when we reaped the benefits. Of course Clinton took the credit even though his own economic "policy" was to basically leave the economy alone.
Obama has done NOTHING positive to effect the economy and we will be paying for his bailouts long after he's left office.
Giving Obama credit for any kind of positive form of gun legislation must be your idea of a sick joke. His AJ lackey's testamony before the Supreme Court in the Heller case and the same individuals flagrant breaking of the law in Operation Fast & Furious readily point out the fallacy of your post. Furthermore his demonstrated overt contempt of Congress is unpresidented for a government official.

Yup. RR raised taxes. It worked wonders.

If ya wanna think about breaking law, think "Iran Contra" but it's counterproductive to point fingers - what we really are interested in is outcome.

The stock market is up. More people are getting employed.

That's good.

Jim, I think Canadians generally look upon their constitution as rules to live by just as we consider Dave's rules to contribute and keep it clean. Constitutions are elegant but all countries transgress as we do here on the board. As for the Bible, Canada is more secular than the US which has far greater numbers attending services regularly, possibly highest percentage in the West. Both our countries, however, observe the Bible differently in practice.

Canadian provinces with most Catholics are producing the least children. Contraception clamours for attention of US primaries where statistics tell us 60 per cent of Catholics practice birth control. Reminds me of Cuomo senior's address to the Democratic convention to the effect "I'm a practicing Roman Catholic but represent all the citizens of New York. Who am I to make contraception laws for everyone when we're not following Church rules ourselves?

Canvas, it might be hair-splitting but we are better off now than we were when Obama took office.

I'm talking about right now - it's not a matter of "time will tell" and whether or not anyone wants to give Obama any credit we are better off by any inclusive metric than we were when he took office.

Some might credit Obama; others might credit pixie dust.

Gnomon, not at all arguing with whether you are better off. Only taking issue with what seemed to be your original assertion that for both gun rights and the economy, Obama deserved credit. It was implied, but it was the essence of your post, as I read it.



What I meant by "time will tell", is that I believe the impact of Obama's economic policies and action won't be fully understood for some years to come. And that is true for any administration. Not that the current metrics don't suggest it is better than in 2008/2009.

Gnomon, I have no expectation that I could ever change your mind, but to correct you....

Unemployment increased dramatically after Obama took office. This was after his promise that the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment below 8%. I am so glad you provided that link to Trading Economics.com.... it proves my point exactly. The chart which pops up looks very good for the one month period shown. But click on the date selection above the chart and change the 2010 to 2000, the year George Bush 46 took office. Man, your boy Obama doesn't look so good now, does he? Why would you give us a link to historical data that shows your boy has presided over the longest and deepest recession since the Depression?

It is generally conceded that the unemployment rate has been falling the last several months because we now have 1.2 million per month running out of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. They are no longer counted as unemployed. So if the whole country was unemployed and never went back to work, the rate would eventually go back to zero. Last month, we gained 200,000 jobs, new claims dropped, but 1.2 million ran out of benefits and many will join the 17 million new food stamp recipients under Obamas' tenure.

If you look at your historical data closer, you can see that Bush 46 inherited a mini-recession from Bill Clinton and made things much better until the mortgage crisis which was precipitated by the Democratic braintrust, Dodd-Frank. As noted earlier, Clinton was a huge benefactor of Reagans' policies. He was able to show huge cuts in military spending because he was gutting a military that Reagan had built to huge levels to bankrupt the former Soviet Union.

I told you why I am complaining about the eventual outcome on gun rights even though there have been few overt assaults during Obamas' tenure. With his judicial appointments at the Federal District and Supreme Court level, his anti-gun dogma will haunt us long after he is gone. His Secretary of State has reversed the U.S. position on the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty, and a lame duck Obama will have no fear of instituting his anti-gun agenda by executive order.

Gunflint Charlie, are you paying attention? Do you see why I have to go on and on and repeat myself? Talking to Gnomon is like reasoning with a 2 year old. Or maybe you agree with him?

OK Gnomon, pay attention now. Gas prices are over a dollar per gallon higher today than they were a year ago. Demand is still very weak due to the piss-poor economy. U.S. stockpiles are way up. That is a big reason refining has slowed. There is no shortage of crude. We just don't need so much refined product due to bloated inventories. So why the higher prices? More importantly, where is the shrill Democrat crying that Bush and Cheney endured about being in bed with Big Oil and keeping gas prices high for their buddies at Haliburton? Shameless Hypocrites with a capital H.

Don't blame Iran's sabre rattling for this. Gas prices were much higher under Obama before Iran started threatening to block the flow of oil. And Obama's handling of Iran and their nuclear program has been a spectacular failure. It has become obvious that Obama will probably decide to attack Iran's nuclear facilities right before the election in order to give himself a boost. You and yours will swallow that bait, hook, line, and sinker.

King Brown, I am going to print out your post on "what is so sacred about Constitutional rights?", and also save it in a file. In the future, when someone says I've painted you in an unfair light, I will be able to reproduce your exact words. That should be required reading for everyone here.

I sure hope I didn't shame one of my protagonists' into making their apparent first ever financial contribution to this BBS a few nights ago in the wee hours. Better late than never. I don't want to mention any names because I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

I don't need a rod and reel when I go fishing. They keep jumping right into my boat.


What did jOe say about being "dum'r 'n a box of rocks"? I want to know why jOe is insulting boxes of rocks?

the true unemployment rate is over 16% when counting those that are discouraged and left the workforce.Look at the charts;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/key-charts...labor-force-plu




Are you better off now then you where 5 trillion dollars ago?
National debt increased 43% !
67 MILLION people now receive subsidies from Washington more then any other time.49% pay NO federal taxes !


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/08/dependence-on-government-at-all-time-high/

Dave K.

You and I should probably try to refrain from talking about Obama's sad economic record here in the DoubleGuns BBS, and stick to his egregious anti-gun resume. I let myself get dragged into that, and shouldn't have. What's at issue here is whether anti-gun politics has any relevence to Double Guns and our ability to maintain those rights. I'm going to try very hard not to let them drag us so far off-topic that they win the initial arguement. I do like your data though... Too bad you'll be accused of making stuff up. Remember, we are just Jim's Parrots. Squawwwk!

Keith, I'm not aware of members painting me in an "unfair light." Some disagree with my opinion as I do theirs. That's not unfair. It's what dialogue is for. I don't mind your quoting my views as long as they are used in context they were made. It's worth considering in any discussion of the sanctity of constitutional rights of what our white majorities did to minorities, blacks there and indigenous peoples here, which continue to this day. One of the bitterest civil wars in history couldn't give meaning to the wonderful words, and we're still palavering to make it right with First Nations.

King:
PLEASE! Don't stoop to the level of playing the race card. We expect more of you than trying to perpetually blame some of our citizens ills on the Whites. The minorities you reference above had had at the very least equal rights and in many cases have received special treatment for a half century now. The reason many are still in poverty certainly has nothing to do with rights.
But I digress:
This is a gun forum and it should be appropriate to discuss ANYTHING generally related to guns in the mainstream of the forum. Gun legislation has the potential to affect ALL of us,including shotgun owners, and going back to the 1934 Gun Act which had a direct impact on shotgun holders. Such formerly useful tools like the H&R Handigun were turned into Gangster weapons by this Act.
The also outlawed Ithaca Auto-Burgler which would IMO probably be as effective a bedside home protection weapon as anything imaginable if it hadn't been essentially outlawed by this legislation.
Jim

Keith, the issue isn't what Bush inherited from Clinton, not even what Obama inherited from Bush. It's what has happened since 2008. The link I provided makes that very clear.

Also, I am going to ignore your ad hominem comments since that kind of stuff is non-productive, hence will not respond in kind. You obviously are not a 2-yr-old and draw your own conclusions from the data. However one needs to understand the basis for the data before pronouncing on it.

The stock market is a pretty good indicator and that, despite volatility, is doing just fine. Working people's income has actually declined in the past 12 or so years and that is a contributor to the great recession. Whether or not that ever gets reversed is problematic but those are the kinds of issues that don't appear in graphs or tables. They are, however, very real and government policies affect them enormously.

As far as shotguns - personally I think that Obama has never seen much less fired one. He probably doesn't like them. HOWEVER, he's a pol and represents people who like and use them as well as the obverse. He has not damaged our gun rights. And he's smart enough not to.

It's vino time in my house- see you tomorrow!

King, please re-read what I said earlier. I never said anything about members painting YOU in an unfair light. And I never even remotely considered quoting your views "out of context", but rather I was saying I wanted to be able to quote your views verbatim, lest I be accused of twisting your thoughts or words. You have told us many times that you are/were a professional wordsmith. You are not comprehending what you read, and you are not thinking about what you write. I know you can do better.

I will simply agree with Jim about your lame attempt at playing the race card. Our NRA has worked diligently to protect the Second Amendment rights of law abiding minorities, especially those who are trapped in the crime ridden product of the Great Society and denied the right to self protection by anti-gun politicians. 'Course, we all know I am nothing but Jim's Parrot. Squaawk! Hey Jim, where's my damn cracker? How about soaking it in bourbon... I'm going to need it.

Gnomon, I would also ask you to go back and re-read what I said, but you would never comprehend it. So don't even bother. The link you provided proves my point, not yours. You shot yourself in the foot and are now standing in a puddle of blood proclaiming victory. That is not an ad hominum attack by me on you. You are doing it to yourself. Please don't stop. You are proving my point.

Jim, I don't know where you see a race card. I said in one post that I didn't know why people made so much of constitutional rights which are trampeled every day, and in following post provided examples of two open wounds because our countries haven't empowered the words. That's not racist. That's our history. Sensitivity is another issue.

Quote from King Brown:

" It's worth considering in any discussion of the sanctity of constitutional rights of what our white majorities did to minorities, blacks there and indigenous peoples here, which continue to this day"

This is playing the race card in my book.
Jim

Such interesting ideas keep surfacing in this thread.

King, could it be that people make much of their constitutional rights precisely because so many politicians, the judiciary and elements of law enforcement are constantly trying to disallow or to ignore those constitutionally enshrined rights, to suit their short term purposes or to engage in social engineering that doesn't yet have the support of the majority.

The never ending analysis of the second amendment is fascinating to me, because while it's words are clear and the benefit, as envisioned by the authors, is clear, it is constantly picked apart by those who would prefer that only the authorities have access to firearms.

Fair enough, Jim. In your book it may be. In Canada---and I suspect in much of the US---it's standard fare in the educational system; in histories as straight narrative of what happened, in social studies of how rhetoric often belies reality i.e there's no path forward without assessments of reality right from scratch. If we blind ourselves to common frailties we'll never get there.

canvasback, yes, we're incensed by infringements and disheartened by Supreme Court arbitration often not providing remedial action. Courts finding for Constitution or Charter rights doesn't mean the executive branch will obey. Guantanamo, Patriot Act and Reagan running a parallel government for Contras and Iran come to mind. Selfish? Governments' job is to protect national interests. Constitutional? The US declared it would invade pre-emptively and change the social and economic systems of countries it felt were inimical to its national interests. We make too much of constitutions as a sacred trust. Believing in the words doesn't make them so.

King, on page 20 of this thread, you make the point that partisan politics has no place in this particular forum. Then you do exactly what you say should not be done. Canvasback steered the discussion back to twisted interpretations of a clear Second Amendment, and you steered the discussion to Guantanimo, the Patriot Act, and a Reagan parallel government for Iran and Contras. You want us to follow the rules to the letter, but it appears you (and several others)can march to a different drummer.

How do you expect Dave Weber to believe that non-doublegun topics are offensive to you if you (and several others) persist in returning to such topics yourself? Actions speak louder than words.

King, you are correct Sir, as the great Ed McMahon used to tell Johnny. We do get incensed by those infringements!

Personally I liked it better when we didn't have one, at least a real one anyway. I liked it better when we were an act of the British Parliament and we based our laws and court decisions on the accumulated wisdom of countless generations, both here and back in Great Britain, in accordance with the country we were, not a future country envisioned by some small group with outsized influence.

The Government of Canada has given me no rights whatsoever. The Canadian Charter of Rights is an illusion if it is imagined that is how we got rights.

I have a right to employment? To healthcare? To being free from discrimination? It is to laugh, this foolishness. No wonder our country's' governments are so screwed up. They can't recognize or admit to truth when it sits squarely before them, regardless of political affiliation.

Government, any government, can't give rights to us. It is only within government's power to take away rights that are intrinsic to being alive, to being human, in the name of creating a more humane and harmonious society, or to recognize those natural rights we are all born with.

So we voluntarily give up certain rights. And perhaps, having made that voluntary sacrifice for the greater good, that is why we get so incensed when the few rights we have retained and kept for ourselves are so often and egregiously trampled on by so many different instruments of the state.

But lets be clear...governments give nothing.

Keith, Jim, Gnomon et al, I may be naive but I firmly believe we can all debate these issues, in as great a detail as any may wish, without getting into partisan politics. I don't have to name any person or party affiliation to discuss, prove or disprove any idea that someone else has put forth (LOL, unless it is Chris Matthews talking about Obama).

I suspect that many on here would be more agreeable to this type of discussion if it was centered on ideas rather than party affiliation or personalities.

I know that each side can be backed into a corner about both beliefs and responsibility on any subject. I know here in Canada we need to get away from the simple labels, the name calling, the completely partisan outlook.

I also know it's hard to do. But it's valuable to get the debate back onto the idea, not the person or party. JMHO

I agree completely canvasback. But when you read King's quote above, and then read the one you just reproduced or look at his own words on pg. 20, you get the full taste and texture of the hypocrisy that is running rampant here. We have guys... not just King, who express their total disdain for partisan politics in this forum. They make sanctimonious pitches to banish all such discussion here. Then they do exactly what they preach must never be done. Who do they think they are fooling? What are their real motives? In order to have a frank and honest debate, we must deal with frank and honest people. When one side states the ground-rules and then plays by a different set of standards, it becomes easy for the game to erupt into a brawl. That's what's causing most of the problems here. When and if we ever have a Republican or third party President who is a threat to our gun rights, I will be just as hard on him as I am on the current guy. It is sad that anti- gunners have so co-opted the Democrat Party and have a stranglehold on so many Democrat politicians. That might change if more Democrat gun-owners told them that was an unacceptable position, and had the convictions to prove it with their vote. My voter registration card reads "No Party Affiliation" for a reason. That little notation excludes me from voting in primary elections in my state. It is the price I have to pay for having no blind allegiance to any Party.

Keith- you wrote (in part only): "Unemployment increased dramatically after Obama took office. This was after his promise that the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment below 8%. I am so glad you provided that link to Trading Economics.com.... it proves my point exactly. The chart which pops up looks very good for the one month period shown. But click on the date selection above the chart and change the 2010 to 2000, the year George Bush 46 took office. Man, your boy Obama doesn't look so good now, does he? Why would you give us a link to historical data that shows your boy has presided over the longest and deepest recession since the Depression? "

If you look at the chart you will see a huge initial rise in unemployment as the whole economy tanked. It coincided with Obama's election. Do you seriously mean to argue that the single event of his election triggered the increase? Or perhaps that it took a while to start getting it under control?

Obama has presided over the longest and severest recession since the Great Depression - that doesn't mean he caused it - and has done so quite competently.

You ask why I show these data? Because they are pretty good and aren't doctored (at least I don't think they are) and they show the whole story - not just snapshots. We might as well try to understand good data not some right or left-wing balderdash.

Here's another one: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm

The middle wage-earners basically just "ran out of money and credit" by the end of the first decade of this century. Major contributor to the collapse and that didn't happen the moment Obama took office - that was the result of at least a decade of Republican policy. They still are trying to block tax-relief for the W-2 crowd!

canvasback wrote (in part): "Keith, Jim, Gnomon et al, I may be naive but I firmly believe we can all debate these issues, in as great a detail as any may wish, without getting into partisan politics. I don't have to name any person or party affiliation to discuss, prove or disprove any idea that someone else has put forth (LOL, unless it is Chris Matthews talking about Obama)"

canvas- didn't know you got Matthews in Canada. Do you get Joe Scarborough? His "Morning Joe" show (6-9AM) is fascinating. He's a conservative, former Florida Congressman, yet he has a wide range of guests. Much less shrill than Matthews and a much wider range of ideas presented ad discussed.

Gnomon, We get most of what you have but they make getting Fox news quite difficult. CNN is almost part of a standard assortment and same for MSNBC. Have watched Scarborough on occasion but I'm not a big fan of watching TV in the morning. Don't want to get stuck on the couch all day! LOL

Love the op/ed from all viewpoints that has developed on TV but I wish all the networks could do a better job of separating op/ed from news reporting. Every Tom (Brokaw), Dick (?) and Harry (Reasoner) reporter wants to tell us his opinion or "frame" the discussion, rather than tell us the news. Murrow should be turning in his grave.

canvas- that's interesting - we don't get any Canadian stuff (unless I don't know where to look!)

I agree that there is too much admixture of opinion, ideology and news.

Friends, what is partisan to some may not be to others. I contributed an opinion of constitutional rights and gave examples where infringements may be in national interests. Constitutions aren't sacrosanct. No matter how beautifully written or emblazoned in words of gold, they cannot and have not been guarantors of peace, order and good government. Citizens usually express their wills through Congress and Parliaments, and the examples I gave did not raise a gnat's eyelash of debate in federal and lower legislatures.

My posts were intended to bring another perspective to the sanctity of constitutions and amendments where they apply to gun control. I was interested in a member's reference to the 2nd's value against tyrannical governments. We've seen the limits of military power in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and the power of people who wouldn't take it any more in Arab Spring. We may not like the outcomes but we've learned at horrific cost that changing regimes and cultures are different things.

Obviously I put my faith in people before constitutions. I've said here several times that the United States always gets it right over time. While it may seem partisan to some members, it is fact that our neighbour and closest friend and the one I prefer for its magnanimity and generosity has changed in a few years from pariah in foreign affairs to having the deserved respect of the world. Call it partisan, call it what you will, look out the window---it's true as Elsies being good guns.

Unfortunately partisan politics is at the core of the "gun" issue. Some of you may honestly think that highly restrictive firearms legislation with the eventual goal of the elimination of the 2nd Amendment would be impossible. I think this article in the Washington Times with Wayne Lapierre(Executive Vise President) as th keynote speaker very accurately and chillingly sums up what we'll be faced with should Obama managed to get re-elected. That is way many of us firmly believe it is imperative that this issue is kept at the forefront as we move into the 2012 elections.
Should he do so it's almost a given he'll get at least one more Supreme Court appointment and that would be the end of the 2nd Amendment. I can only imagine what would happen should this occur.
Jim


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/insi...-guns-2nd-term/

Gnomon,

Move your questions about the Great Depression of 2008 to Misfires, and I will debate you. Or you can study what is already here including the damning data Dave K provided. I have decided that we were probably being baited into political discussions which had nothing to do with guns or the Second Amendment. I further decided to self-police and pull away from those discussions, not because I can't defend my positions, but because so many who have raised those non-gun issues are the very souls who piously proclaim that is why they do not want Gun Control topics in the DoubleGun BBS.

Did you perhaps read my post from early this morning at 2:06 AM? This cuts to the heart of why I disagree with you and your position on gun control. There is no way you can proclaim to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and continue to also support politicians who would violate their oath of office and attempt to severely restrict or abolish it. And you do nothing to try to change their position so that you can continue to vote for them because you agree with their other core principals. I am not painting an unfair picture of you. I am reaching my conclusion because that is what you have told us about yourself and your laissez faire attitudes toward gun rights.

This could all go on for days or weeks or months, but it has been very apparent for quite some time that there are a number of members here who have the "Do as I say, not as I do," attitude. I'm sure our host, Dave Weber, has noticed by now that many who proclaimed the pretend fear that these topics would devolve into petty bickering unrelated to any type of gun are the very ones who took us down those side roads. Hypocrisy is such a strong word, but what else could one call such behavior?

Stick to why it is wrong or bad to discuss legislative or political topics that may ultimately affect our right to own any guns, or debate me elsewhere via Misfires or PM's. I took the bait early on, but I've spit out the hook. Those who have wailed, gnashed their teeth, and beat their breasts in mock anguish can try to lure me in again. They tried to fool us, but worse, they tried to fool Dave.

I've had more than my share here, Jim. You've heard me say ownership and hunting will be gone as we know it, not in my lifetime but within 25 years the way things are going. My children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren look at me as batty for doing with guns what I do. The hollowing out of our countries of rural to the cities is crimping the old verities of resourcefulness, freedom and independence. It's driving the unwarranted way growing majorities think of safety with fear of everything. The 2nd Amendment will remain despite how its meaning is used. What's important to me is that the US was born out of revolt against misguided authority. Nothing I've seen since of your country believing in its exceptionalism, a light on the hill, its patriotism and jingoism easily the most pervasive throughout the world, makes me think it would defer to misguided authority again. I believe in the people, not wordsmiths.

King, while I hope you are wrong about the demise of hunting, I could not let the rest of your comment pass without noting, in my opinion, the truth of what you say.

America is the light on the hill for the rest of the world, Canada included. It is a remarkable place filled with remarkable people. Unique in it's commitment and attempts throughout it's history to throw off the yoke of oppression and give every citizen opportunity. The world has never seen something similar. I believe you are absolutely correct when you suggest it's citizens would never defer to misguided authority.

It IS the people, not the words on paper, that makes America great.

Canvasback and King: Your kind words about America and our citizens were much appreciated. I can't speak for all Americans, but personally I am very fond of the Canadian people and I always enjoy visiting Canada and its' pristine wilderness. I am thankful your government gives me that opportunity. Canada and the UK are the best of America's allies and I believe and hope most Americans understand that.

[quote=King Brown: Whatever Dave does with this dissolving phantasmagoria, my hope is that there's a cleanup of all the political partisanship and slogans, jingoism, imputing of motives and citizenship, and it's packed it off to another place on the board. I'm here to learn about doubles. I don't give a tinker's dam about someone's father or politician unless it relates to gun provenance or some activity in the shooting sports. [/quote]

King, the second sentence of your last post goes to the heart of why some of us are being so passionate about keeping gun control topics front and center. We don't wish to reach a point where the rights we currently enjoy are but a memory in 25 years or so. The only way to insure that does not happen is for more of us to become involved and remain engaged. None of us is perfect in that regard. I can do better. All of us can do better. Simply buying guns and shells and hunting licenses and even wearing an NRA hat will not get it done. Pretending there is no threat in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupid. There is no other, more polite, word for it. Sorry, but history proves my point. I harbor no illusions that we will ever get 40 million gunowners to act in one united front and send gun grabbing politicians packing to a place from which they will never again attempt to take us on. But it is our perceived weakness and apathy that gives them the heart and courage to keep picking away at us. Canvasback's excellent examples illustrate the foolishness of waiting until we are stuck in a hole. The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

I hate to keep dissecting your prior posts, but I have further reduced the one quoted here to illustrate my previous point. You have been at the forefront with several others to keep this forum pure DoubleGun. But you have strayed into Islamophobia, Rednecks, Anti-Semitism, Catholics and Birth Control, and various other partisan politics areas. Personally, I have no problem with this, but it is not me who has implored Dave to not allow it to happen. I personally enjoy a little heated discussion occasionally. It gets the blood flowing and makes you think. If I allow myself to get overly passionate and make a rash or incorrect statement, I have no problem stepping back and apologizing for it. No big deal... no blood shed. Some here act like having these sidebar discussions will degenerate this BBS and cause its' eventual collapse. They act like we are sucking up too much internet bandwidth or something and acting like that wouldn't happen if these topics were tucked away in Misfires.

I have been simply shooting holes in those falsehoods whenever I can. We have had these discussions here in the past and DoubleGunshop.com did not collapse. Never did this type of discussion threaten to dominate this BBS. Even the fact that this one has now dragged on for 25 pages would hardly be noticeable if those who claim disinterest would simply not click on it, or more inexplicably, keep coming back to it. Those who want it to go away are as guilty as I am at keeping it alive. There has been infighting and bickering and nobody shed any blood. I have been insulted and mischaracterized and have not lost a minute of sleep over it. Anyone who has ought to grow a set.

This is not SewingWithNancyBoy.com... we are mostly grown men who shoot guns and get into testosterone fueled discussions here, in school, at work, at hunting camps, and everywhere we go. We pound ourselves with the recoil of 100 rounds at trap or skeet, and pick up the empties so we can reload them and pound ourselves again. We walk miles over rough terrain following dogs in pursuit of a few birds. We have guys here who pick themselves up and push on despite cancers and chemo and radiation or a dozen other debilitating difficulties. Did you happen to read Jim Legg's last posthumous post that was submitted by his daughter? His last words to us confirmed what I had always suspected. He told us how much he enjoyed his time with us, and it confirmed that he actually enjoyed the verbal sparring matches he participated in. I admired that admission. And I laugh at the mock indignation that is being tossed about here in an attempt to suppress or hide gun control discussions.

I have been buying,selling and enjoying collecting firearms for more years than I care to remember. I can remember back to the days when firearms ownership was not an issue in this great country until some unfortunate incidences brought it to the forefront. Most of the myths postulated by the anti's have been dispelled over he years. Unfortunately they were given "mainstream reporting at the time and are still believed to be factual by many.
49 of the 50 States now have some form of conceal carry(Illinois being the sole exception). In each case as the legislation was being put in place the antis screamed that there would be "blood running in the streets". This of course hasn't happened and the net result has been a dramitic reduction in the crime rate across the board.
Going back to the basics:
I started this discussion to point out an effort by the antis to protest Starbucks policy of permitting armed customers to stop in for a coffee in their shops. This enlighted policy is intolerable to the antis and I believe it's important to bring their efforts out into the light. But NOT in some offbeat area but in the forefront of this forum I fully intend to continue these efforts and will continue to do so unless I'm instructed otherwise.
The detractors haven't posted one viable reason to move such discussions elsewhere. All they keep doing is to try to change the subject and get a "political" discussion going in the hope the thread will be shut down.
Jim

Geez, must be a conspiracy among the detractors.

What was that about proving the point of your opposition??

Jim there have been many many viable, reasonable, and rational points posted why we want the gun-rights discussions in another section. Go to the advanced search function, search the Misfires section for the key word "Kenyan". Tens of reasons show up right there.

The best reason is that we don't want all that partisan political discussion and it's derivitives in this forum.

Keith your ability to type long paragraphs repeating yourself does not make you right, just persistent.

If we go by members posting on this thread and not by dozens of paragraphs it looks like it is only you and Jim that want that discussion here compared to many that don't.

Keith the deleted thread was neither started by me nor did I have the last post on it. You state as fact my motive. How did you know that. Did I PM you or email you my motive.? It was not what you stated. ed wrote up a new set of rules for this section of the BBS and, like you and Jim, was trying to impose them upon the rest of us without Dave's blessing or some kind of policy vote by the members.




Jim you repeated yourself. I repeat, he already has:



I think we ought to have a separate section for the gun-rights discussions. I mean separate from the Misfires. I thnk it will get mucked up just like it does in the Misfires section but at least we will have given Second Amendment discussions a place with a respectful title on this board. The posters there would have decide if they were going to conduct themselves with the courtesy and respect Second Amendment discussions deserve.

Best,

Mike

Oh Mike, Mike, Mike, you most certainly did PM me about the ed1 thread. And guess what? I have not deleted it from my messages. Your first PM to me about it was on 11/30/11 at 10:43PM, and your follow up came on 12/4/11 at 7:43AM. The title header on your PM is "My Tussle With Ed". Am I ringing any bells here? I could copy and paste it here, but why cause you the embarrassment you've tried to cause me? I can't say who initiated the thread, because it is gone from the archives and nobody who participated shows a post being made in that thread from the "users posts" section. One thing I will state with certainty is that you absolutely dominated that thread. You had multiple, long, repetitive, posts. And not one of them had anything to do with the subject matter that the DoubleGun BBS is supposed to contain if we are following the rules. You did in fact state your motive to convince Dave to permanantly suspend Ed within your posts. You can deny it all you want but there are too many folks, especially Ed, who have not forgotten. So please don't come here saying I was imputing your motives. I did strongly agree with what you were saying and offered my support in that thread. That is why you PM'd me to thank me. Your welcome.

Now onward to your second attempt to bring the politics pertaining to birther threads which ran in Misfires into this forum. You keep saying you don't want that stuff here, but it is you and only you who is attempting to bring it here. Nobody else. What are you trying to pull? I almost rose to the bait the first time but I decided to let it go knowing it would come back again. And well, guess what?... you brought it back again... Proof positive that you, one of the main opponents to political topics that have nothing to do with Double Guns, is trying his damnedest to get those topics rolling here. Nice try. Better luck next time. To paraphrase one of my now deceased mentors, I'm too old of a cat to get screwed by kittens.

My ability to write long paragraphs repeating myself may not make me right. Nor does repeating yourself make you right. But it should be now apparent to all that you are saying one thing and doing another in this thread. Pious preaching means little when you are yourself doing what you've told the congregation not to do.

I admit, I am persistant, as are you. This back and forth banter could go on until one of us has fingers so arthritic we can no longer type. I have said I always enjoyed your posts whether they were strictly on topic or not. I agree with 99.9% of everthing I've read from you. We obviously will never agree on this one issue. Big deal. I wouldn't mind if it ended because I have better things to do and I'm sure you do as well.

Whether gun right topics are allowed to remain here in the future is entirely up to our host. I think they ought to remain here because they are important to our continued right to own and shoot doubles. Alternately, I also like Canvasbacks suggestion that Gun Rights rise to the top of the menu, which apparently has worked well in the Canadian GunNutz forum. I think we could police ourselves, with gentle reminders from time to time, and have a useful resource and dialog.

That said, I'm ready for a cease-fire and truce whenever everybody else is. I'm not close to running out of gas, but we've all had our fun and we've made our points. Name a date, name a time, and I'll even let you have the last word. It would be nice if we could end this as friends, or at least friendly.

I have forgotten both what and that I had PMed you on the ed thread. Please feel free to post it here. I looked through my PMs to see if I had PMd you before I posted that I hadn't PMd you bit I didn't spot it. I don't have enough PMs that I have had to delete any yet. I stand corrected.

Edit. This is the PM I sent to Keith:



I certainly feel no ill will towards you or Jim and we are certainly BBS friends.

But I repeat my belief that angry and ugly discussions of partisan politics will follow the gun rights discussion wherever it goes and most don't want it here, including me. There is an old saw about not discussing politics or religion unless you want to get into a fight.

If a Second Amendment section is added it doesn't make me any difference where they put it on the list. And of course it may remain in Misfires or be moved here.


After reneging on my first pledge I state for the second time I leave the last word to others on this thread.


Best,

Mike

italiansxs...I emailed Starbucks and thanked them for their support of my 2nd Amendment rights. I also called them at their head office and thanked them again. And below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to a couple of the anti-gun orgs:

"Going to my local Starbucks on Valentine's Day to show my support for their respect for the Constitution, and my 2nd Amendment rights.
Probably be one of the safest places I will be, all day........Grant Marquardt Elgin, MN"

Oh! italian, if you are the one using the term; "The Kenyan", keep up the good work......... Grant.

You guys keep using the term Kenyan and i'll keep think about you as I do. Thats fair. But I still dont want to see it when I'm trying to read about shotguns.

Did you not think Kenyan when you hit the Obama button ?

I bought my 'puter before the Obama button was mandated.

Just a reminder:
Tomorrow is Feb 14th. Please make your presence known at your local Starbucks in support of their stance for all gunowners. This is one American Corporation with a spine!
Jim

Dear Jim,


Thank you for contacting Starbucks.


Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks' policy on open carry laws. I am truly happy to hear that you support and appreciate our gun policy!



At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.



As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.



Hope to see you in our stores on February 14th! Thanks again for your support and have a beautiful day!




If you have any further questions or concerns that I was unable to address, please feel free to let me know.



Warm Regards,



Christina M

Customer Relations

Starbucks Coffee Company

800 STARBUC (782-7282)

Monday through Friday, 5AM to 8PM (PST)