taken from the PGCA site:

As this forum exponentially grows in size, there are some basic “rules” which need to be considered. To be honest, we believe that the tremendous growth in this community is due to adherence to some very simple guidelines. These are the same guidelines that the Administrator and all the Moderators try to maintain and adhere to – so, in reading these, you’ll understand what we “moderate” to in principle – each day, with each thread and within each post. (Ironically - if you want to tick us off – you can read these same guidelines, and figure out how to “get us going”..?? )

The Public forums are open to anyone who registers and follows these forum rules no matter how many times they post. While we do encourage PGCA membership – it is not required to post. So, here we go with what is expected.....

Only in the closed PCGA Members Section is Buying and Selling vintage shotguns allowed. If you want to sell your family Parker - or ANY Parker or firearm - on this site then you MUST join the PGCA first! (Click here to join the PGCA - it's instantaneous and painless...)
No profanity will be tolerated.
Do NOT post sexual, racial, or other jokes or cartoons, and/or comments/illustrations that disparage others because they are different.
Do NOT post political discussions concerning Democrats, Republican, or other parties - or liberal versus conservative views/platforms. You may discuss gun rights but be careful not digress into a political debate. For example, encouraging others to vote or join the NRA are acceptable posts. Encouraging others to vote for a certain party or politician is political and not allowed.
Be polite and respectful to others. There are no stupid questions, there are however rude answers which might get the responder a “time out”.
Try to be helpful to others. If you are in a bad mood then please do not participate as your negative mood will undoubtedly show in your posts.
Do NOT drink alcohol and post in this forum. You know who you are – and so do we….
Common respectful and professional debates are encouraged BUT, that does NOT include a personal attack of the person you are debating. Frankly, if you do not like someone - do not fight or attack them in your posts. Please contact them outside this forum and our servers/systems – and then feel free to trade insults.
You may discuss positive or negative service or of a gunsmith, dealer, auction service, etc. – BUT – you may NOT slander them. This subject is like pornography, one knows it when they see it. Take your smut/slander elsewhere and keep this site clean. Further, if a Moderator or an Admin deletes your post, there is a reason we did so (for more on this, please read below – How to get yourself banned from the PGCA Forum).
Never copy a PM or private e-mail and post in public - especially if it concerns a feud with another member, business, or entity. I am NOT “Judge Judy”, nor will I take any action on your behalf in your grievance. As well, if/when you do post a private communication in a public forum, you open yourself up to a legal suit. Whether they or you might prevail – we could also care less. What we do care about is protecting this community and the members who are not interested in your complaint.
Only PGCA Members may sell or post wanting to buy guns and only then in the PGCA Members Section. As well, if someone posts a firearm for sale who is NOT a PGCA Member, please do NOT flame them! Gently remind them that buying/selling is a privilege accorded to only PGCA Members, and use the “Report this post” feature, and we will take care of it professionally on behalf, and in the best interest of the PGCA. As well, I’ll be modifying new Forum User's features, so you will NOT be able to contact them through the PM/email feature this forum – so they CAN NOT sell their Parker to you, as they posted as a Non-Member.
Do NOT post Internet links (addresses) of guns for sale or auction other than a member giving notice of their guns for sale in the Members Only section. Further, please DO NOT POST THEM IN THE PGCA FOR SALE FORUM! In short, if you do NOT own the firearm for sale, or have the right to sell it – do not post it in the PGCA For Sale Forum. The PGCA Member “Off Topic” forum would be just dandy, though…

How to get yourself banned from the PGCA Forum….

This is easy – and should be just “professional common sense”, but – at times, it appears some folks need reminding. So, here goes….

If an Admin/Moderator warns you in public or private – please know that there is a reason we are warning you. Should you insist on disregarding those warnings, you can, and probably will, have your posting privileges revoked.
If a moderator deletes your post/thread, or edits the same - do NOT try to gather a public “lynching mob” or incite a riot by posting in public ‘well, I can’t say that or I’ll get censored..’… We “moderate” given to the best interests of this community. That your “standards” are not as high as ours - is not our concern. Rather, if you have an issue with something we have moderated – ask us privately and professionally and we will explain “why” – if we haven’t already (which, we probably already have - but you decided your view is more important?). If you don’t accept it, that’s fine – take it off line. In short, posting in this community is your privilege – not “your right”, and just because you “pay your annual dues” has no bearing on your “right to post whatever you feel like”.
If we (Admins/Mods) take an action with a member of this community – such as giving them a “time out”, or even a permanent “ban” (I’ve banned exactly two people since I started this in 2007), please know that they know specifically why their posting privileges have been suspended – and so do we. Please do NOT post a “public lynching” thread trying to incite a public riot as to how unfair the admin/mods are. History will tell you, that if you do that – you will be embarrassed at the outcome. Rather, just ask us in private, and we will save you some public humiliation.
This forum is NOT your public PA system. If you send someone a PM, please DO NOT POST A NEW THREAD saying “John Doe, check your PMs”. Come on. No one wants to know you sent a PM to John Doe, nor, frankly - does anyone care? Pick up the phone and call “John Doe”, or e-mail him/her. Or…?? Just, please – do NOT post a new thread?

Jeff K. and I (and other moderators in the future) may choose to edit, amend or update these articles as this community continues to evolve. In the meantime, we thank each and all of you for choosing to become part of this same PGCA Community.

My Sincerest thanks to all - and especially to one PGCA Member, who assisted tremendously,

And oh - if you are one of the folks - who in reading this missive, is thinking "Is he talking about me?".

Yep - I probably am....

Have a great day - and thanks for reading!

John Dunkle

and let the games begin...

Thanks John D. for taking the time to come up with that great draft for forum rules. Could be a typo though, shouldn't it say 'doublegunshop' not PGA before you run it by Dave.

Forum Decorum???????????? Now ed is an interior decorator. I sure hope he doesn't paint the walls with weird colors like his shotguns.

Did someone just fart?

Good idea ed, but lets add a few extra rules to cover all of the bases. The following would also get you expelled:

1) Torch coloring shotguns, causing shotguns to be torch colored, and selling torch colored shotguns... especially with a vague return policy.

2) Lying. Anyone caught red handed in a lie would be banished. Anyone telling other lies to cover up or excuse the earlier lie would be also waterboarded. There will be no exceptions for octagenarians. An 80+ year old liar was probaby just a 40-something liar 40 years ago. He has just had more time to polish his lying technique.

3) Disseminating anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment/ anti-NRA information or opinions. This is a gun related website. Without our gun rights, this website cannot survive. Our guns become valueless. And we will have to take up golf or some other silly so-called sport or hobby. Those who undermine and subvert these things are not our friends. If they attempt to conceal their anti-Second Amendment behavior behind ownership of guns like Obama and John Kerry, they will be waterboarded.

4) Providing cover for anti-gun politicians... for all of the reasons stated in rule #3. Attempts to portray politicians with anti-gun voting records as either pro-gun or no threat to gun rights will be construed as lies... which they are. See rule #2 above.

That's it for now. Tell us ed, how many times have you been booted from here and other forums?

PGCA has done a good job of making its forums a safe place from fools. Thanks for posting its rules, Ed. The Parker men make rudeness unacceptable. No rules, however, can remove behavior by those who can’t help themselves. i.e. monomania: “a derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only,” “a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness,” “a mental illness especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought.” That we’ll always have with us, an illness to compassionately endure.

well said, king.

and the usual uncordial, overtly aggressive and consist exhibition of stupidity from you keith.

Mike, ed and King's rules do not apply to liars and hypocrites. Therefore, they are exempt.

It is neither civil nor cordial to lie or subvert our Civil Rights.

Eddy boy did not do much learning in that hillbilly school here he is when he was just learning to squeal like a pig.

keith: how are your civil rights being subverted by members of this forum? it sounds like that if some of us do not agree with all aspects of your views, then we are subverting your civil rights here? ah don tink so...

your refusal to respect the views of others and constantly calling some of us names here, certainly is not cordial. and you are often overtly aggressive and as a result do exhibit stupidity sometimes...

brave men have said: "I may not agree with what you say...but I will die to defend your right to say it". I agree with that. do you?

k: you are hopelessly making a fool out of yourself here...

ed, we are not talking about my views. We are talking about the views expresseed by the Framers in the Bill of Rights. You and King apparently feel those rights are fair game for your idiotic notions which only transfer power and freedom away from law abiding men, and give it back to Liberal politicians who make no secret of their disdain for armed citizens

I don't even begin to approach the aggressiveness of the men who gave us this gift of freedom. They took up arms and killed the people who tried to keep them as subjects instead of citizens. I will continue to illuminate the activities of the small minority here who think our Second Amendment needs changes.. especially those emanating from non-citizens who do nothing to preserve or promote gun rights in their own country. Deal with it. No agenda driven weasels are going to stop me.

Keith, I'm sure you've been told this before, but perhaps you should be reminded that gun owners in the US are a minority. Our rights could be cancelled by vote. That is not going to happen any time soon, but you really ought to take the longer view. Who is it you imagine you're persuading when you denigrate King Brown? He is consistently a voice for reason here. Of course you and others here disagree with him on some points. When you attack him and everyone else who differs with you to any degree, all you accomplish is to make gun owners look like boorish, loudmouth hot heads. The country has many, many voters whose stand on firearms issues is not set in stone. We need to sway them to the pro-gun rights side. Your constant stream of insults, while it may cement your solidarity with 4 other members here, undoubtedly turns away any potential supporters who hear you. I don't think you do any damage here, but if you rant in public the way you do here, you're not helping gun rights.

Thanks for clearing it up for me Bill, I thought John wanted to start a golf subforum.

Maybe you might read King's mononucleosis comment again. If he isn't fun'in a bit, he may be directing a message to you. Snacks for thought.

Thanks for reminding folks that votes count. Can I count on you to visit around these parts again and again to remind everyone about the dem prowest, progun, prohunting stance. Please don't hesitate to remind how we all have to get along and work together, after you get your lib agenda entrenched.

Attack, I suppose you're not one of those bumpkins hanging on to their guns-n-bibles. What's your agenda if we know it's not progun. Maybe actions speak louder than rhetoric. Don't stop at King the fellow and your feelings, maybe appreciate that there are factual, ideological, and policy differences.

goodness me...civil discussion on misfires...will wonders never cease?

Bill, King Brown could only be considered a consistent voice of reason if you are a leftist liberal socialist... which we know you are. Too bad you don't exhibit the same tolerance and calls for reasoned discussion when you refer to TEA Party folks.

King has been consistently subverting our Second Amendment rights and criticizing the very successful methods and strategies of the NRA for quite some time now. He provides support and cover for vehemently anti-gun politicians.
Yet he claims to be pro-gun rights.

Actions really do speak louder than words. King's words have been piously pro gun as he tries to reinvent his recent actions. You might be buying it, but anyone who honestly looks at the record will recognize this as just more in a long stream of lies and dishonesty. If my decision to not ignore that turns off some folks, I really doubt that they would seriously consider voting pro-gun rights anyway.

Bill, King Brown could only be considered a consistent voice of reason if you are a leftist liberal socialist... which we know you are. Too bad you don't exhibit the same tolerance and calls for reasoned discussion when you refer to TEA Party folks.

King has been consistently subverting our Second Amendment rights and criticizing the very successful methods and strategies of the NRA for quite some time now. He provides support and cover for vehemently anti-gun politicians.
Yet he claims to be pro-gun rights.

Actions really do speak louder than words. King's words have been piously pro gun as he tries to reinvent his recent actions. You might be buying it, but anyone who honestly looks at the record will recognize this as just more in a long stream of lies and dishonesty. If my decision to not ignore that turns off some folks, I really doubt that they would seriously consider voting pro-gun rights anyway.

My point is that you're preaching to the choir. You don't need to convert King, or me; we all need to influence those who can be persuaded. If King or I were the enemy you need to overcome, there wouldn't be a problem.

keith: may I respectfully suggest that you are the enemy, in that your rigid "nra gun nut" posts here provide fuel for those real anti gunners who wish to confiscate and ban as many of all types of firearms as they can...

in your best effort to protect gun ownership rights, you are in fact further endangering our rights to keep and bear arms.

I'd never hope to convert a hard left dem. I've mentioned before, I choose to comment because I don't think that 'inevitable' left turn destroying the best of America has to be smooth and easy for you folks.

You, meaning the left, are the enemy to overcome because that's how you present yourself, and that's how you claim to vote. Not only do you compromise my kid's and grangkid's future, but you do it without showing any results.

Are we healthier, happier, financially better off, free of petroleum product usage, greener, post racial, and on and on. You're in the middle of the second of two terms in a row of the most liberal ideologues steering the country.

I challenge you to come up with a general list of improvements for the US of A that are the result of the policy from the last five or six years.

Bill, the problem with the approach you are advocating, which I understand to be an attempt to establish a rapprochement with the anti gun movement through some measure of accommodation to their wishes, is that there will be no end to what they ask for until we aren't allowed to own guns. And that is because their objections aren't grounded in fact and reality but in fear and misinformation.

If one day I heard a approach that actually represented reasonable, fact based accommodation from both sides, I'd be all for it. But the anti gun people are taking the long view and any "accomodation" we make now is simply a step in the long march to banning guns, as far as they are concerned.

Craig, conservatism around the world is in ascendancy. James made the observation that he's against all taxes. My three sons and three daughters now nearing retirement---two are retired--- have been paying increasingly higher taxes and seeing little or no benefit from them. They feel the same way. But taxes will have to be raised in a world of necessary restraint because increasing populations will make increasing calls on services. GOP and Democrats are clearly converging with this realization.

They mightn't like each other much but are on the same course. Pragmatism is diminishing stultifying partisan politics. How do you make an enemy of another who's similarly focussed by the sight of hanging together? As for national improvements, US is disengaging from overseas adventures, gained greater respect from the world, shamed Canada with clearer energy and environmental strategies, made initial steps toward universal health care.

All while taming The Great Recession.

Thank you Craig and canvasback! As for you ed, you are one of the guilty who have been attempting to initiate discussions on your idiotic ideas to restrict certain classes of firearms and magaziine capacities.

There is nothing to discuss. Discussion only opens the door to compromise. Compromise with the anti-gunners always means us giving up another piece of our rights. As canvas says, enough is never enough. It's their turn to give.

I see you initiating threads calling for being nice and civil while you still engage in name calling. I see rocky mountain bill saying that my actions will turn off folks and hurt my cause, while he ridicules and denigrates TEA Party folks and Ted Crux. Who do you two hypocrites think you're fooling?

Your argument and rocky mountain bills argument is nothing but a smokescreen. You and King can continue to put forth your anti-second amendment bullshit and lies. I can't stop you. But I can and will point out who you are and what you are trying to do using lies, deception, and misinformation. I have no cause or reason to ever be nice to people who are working to subvert my rights. You are not our friend.

craig: "I challenge you to come up with a general list of improvements for the US of A that are the result of the policy from the last five or six years."

that's a tough one... I'm working on it...

oh, heres two:

-we got some roads paved sooner than later...

-some terrorist got droned instead of picked up and sent to Guantanamo...

that's about it.

but then, to be fair lets make the same list for the first six years bush was in orifice:

-?

Your kidding King,man just when I thought you could no go deeper in the hole for our golfer in chief and his failed presidency-shown in polls you do.
I hope both you and Fergeson are still here come Nov,I know it won't change your mind but at least I can gloat when the senate falls.The rats will really be jumping ship then and the lame duck "worst president in 70 years" will watch his administration-the most corrupt fight one trial after another.

Do you even look at whats going on in the world? Iran and the rest of the middle east are imploding,how about at home?IRS scandal getting closer to the oval office,Vets Admins
scandal,Illegal invasion-border,Benghazi just to name a few.The press is even having a hard time covering for him and Dems up for election are running from Obama.

From WP;

Obama has presided over a recent string of disasters that make even Carter look competent. From his failure to enforce his own red line in Syria to the release of five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay to the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea to the implosion of Iraq, the world is on fire — and Obama’s foreign policy legacy is in tatters. If Obama sticks to his plan to replicate his Iraq withdrawal in Afghanistan, things could get even worse abroad: Obama could leave office with Islamic radicals controlling safe havens in two countries from which they can plan new attacks.

On the home front, just look at the past six weeks: We’ve had the Department of Veterans Affairs scandal the flood of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children across the border the epidemic of hard-drive crashes at the Internal Revenue Service after Congress began investigating the targeting of the president’s political opponents .. a 2.9 percent economic contraction in the first quarter of 2014 . and a series of stinging rebukes from the Supreme Court on recess appointments and Obamacare’s contraception mandate. There’s not much for history to vindicate in that cascade of debacles.

Obama’s hope is that, years from now, Obamacare will do the same for his legacy. But unlike the Civil Rights Act, Obamacare was passed on a party-line vote, without the support of a majority of Americans and on the basis of a lie (the president’s false promise that Americans could keep their doctors and their health plans). Moreover, Obamacare’s pledges that premiums would be lower and that the scheme wouldn’t add to the deficit are likely not to be met. As Hoover’s Charles Blauhous points out, the annual costs of Obamacare will hit $200 billion by 2020, yet some of the mechanisms to pay for it — from the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports) to penalties on individuals and employers for failing to carry or offer health insurance — have been repealed or delayed.

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. In May, the law registered 55 percent opposition.

The more likely scenario is that Obamacare will go down in history not as the project that salvaged Obama’s legacy but the one that discredited big-government liberalism for a generation.

Just to put a finer point on it....I recognized my obligation as a citizen to contribute, through the payment of taxes, to the well being of my country and fellow citizens.

However, and it's a huge however, the nature of government is that they badly waste our money. With foolishness, corruption, stupidity, feathering the nest and desires for greater control of citizenry. The only way to combat that effectively is to make government EARN every dime they take in in revenue. They need to be sweating every day where the cash is coming from....not printing money or raising taxes. It's our money god dammit and someone should be looking out for it.

There is good news,CB,once again-hopefully for good this time.The era of big government is over (come this Nov).The TEA party and American has had enough of "fundamental change"

Look at the recent Gallup Poll'

According to a December Gallup poll, the number of people who say that “big government” is the greatest threat to the country has risen from 55 percent when Obama took office to 72 percent today — the highest that number has ever been in 50 years of polling. For the next quarter century, whenever a liberal politician proposes some new, big-government program, all conservatives will have to say to discredit it is: “It’s just another Obamacare.”

I don't believe conservatism is in ascendancy, but maybe you were thinking the divide is brought into focus by those who benefit from division?

King, I honestly can't stand, but don't mind your implication that the answer to funding services falls on the shoulders of less and less. A larger population would only mean to me, a larger tax base, not burden. There needs to be the will to let them contribute, not fake the numbers.

No, the left and the right are not converging on the same course. Politicians may all take the course of politicians, but their ideologies might not be vaguely commingled.

I'm not making an enemy of Bill, heck I'd probably work with him if he had business in my neck of the woods. But no, his focus is quite different than mine and he presents himself in a way that I appreciate. Maybe you were stereotyping me as a one issue kind of fellow. What's wrong with a little cordial honesty.

I don't mind your list of 'improvements', but as usual, figuring what an improvement is could be a whole other can of worms. Even if he's not my guy, couldn't I hope for real improvements.

James, I said here years ago that our shooting future will be unrecognizable from what it is now in my lifetime. When I joined the board, I related a story of my oldest hunting buddy---now 97---saying "King, we've seen the best of it." You're absolutely correct: anti-gunners are playing the long-game; history is on their side. Communities around here see us as dinosaurs, patiently waiting for us to die. They've the numbers.

The best protection of our gun rights are what we represent to our communities as citizens. Bill's post above didn't suggest accommodation and was more of our not projecting the sort of behaviour exhibited here that makes us all look like lunatics. Migod, James, I'm hoping to see you in Nova Scotia before your son's off to school in the fall, you a true Blue Tory and me a mostly-left radical. What kind of people put hatred before friendship?

Which is kind of your way of saying, more wisely and generously, "If one day I heard an approach that actually represented reasonable, fact-based accommodation from both sides, I'd be all for it." Exactly. Same here. (Two more now on the extremists' enemy list!) Thank you.

King, it is likely that you, me, Keith, Dave, Craig and everyone else who is a member of the DGBB would like to end the discussion of gun rights. We only have it because they are under attack.

If we could be left alone, secure with the knowledge that agreements had been reached that end the discussion and let us reasonably pursue our sporting gun aims and our differing requirements for self defense, I think we'd all sign on. But I won't be holding my breath as reasonable accommodation isn't what the anti gun crowd are after.

I was disappointed you seemed to have made Bill a de facto enemy. Pleased to read otherwise. Where there is lock-step unanimity, watch out. As I said very early on---and was jumped on---dissent is the gospel. Jesus used it to turn the Roman world upside-down.

I can't think of a country in a left-turn. Russia and China may be communist but their systems are a familiar form of modernization that accepts all the benefits of global integration without giving up their ideological control over their peoples. As someone posted here today, we don't see anyone running to Cuba or Venezuela.

I don't believe the tax burden falls on fewer citizens---if that's what you mean by less and less. The tax system has become so distorted by special interests---money talks, as it always has---that it has lost the capacity to redistribute. As The Economist editors reported, far from reducing inequality, the modern state is making the problem worse.

They said: "If you put spending and taxes together, including all the deductions, the government lavishes more dollars overall on the top fifth of the income distribution than the bottom fifth. " You can argue entitlements with authors Micklethwait and Wooldridge, Brits who don't have dogs in the fight. However you cut it, the rich are getting the cream.

Finally, after all these years and hundreds of your posts, I've a fairly good picture of you. You don't fit a stereotype. You're not of a monotonous regularity. You tease a bit, fool around with words but I've always felt you're honest and curious about other views. And, yes, my notions of improvements must be different from others because of our different cultures and experience.

We rarely get final answers on these things in a lifetime.

You know what kind of behavior makes you look like a lunatic King? Getting caught in a lie, and trying to use another lie to explain it away... then getting busted for that when some uncivil cretin does the unthinkable and proves that you were lying by reproducing your exact words. So then you resort to flailing and attempting to descredit them. When you get called out yet again with proof positive... you cut and run.

See pages 14 and 15 of the "Is King Brown an Anti-gunner" thread to see this brand of lunacy on full display. Game over King. Your bullshit isn't going to fly anymore. I'm sure you understand since there's no unanimity in anything. And wouldn't this be a boring place if we all agreed with your lies!

How about that, every now and then I mention 'lock-step', with the direct or implied thought to 'watch out'. Oh, and that's dissent with an asterisk. What if a 'do nuth'in GOP'er' were a crook sitting outside your house. What would you prefer, that they 'do nothing', or break in and steal just a little. Well, some would pick 'c', belittle them.

I believe it's come to mind before, but why cut at the crumbs of the lower eighty percent. Maybe, I think my crumbs are just a-okay with....me. If everyone was entitled to cream, who's gonna change the tires on your pickup when it's time for a new set. Who's gonna be that female whitehouse staffer that settles for less pay than the fellows, because she wants to.

Remember, I'm first in line when 'The Life-n-Times of KB' comes out, in paperback, but you still might not get me to read it.

We won't be left alone. I can't recall any time in the Age of Public Activism---I just made that term up; since the 60s-- that a majority hasn't imposed its will negatively or positively. We're a minority. I live in prime hunting habitat where no home lacked a a rifle and shotgun; today I doubt there's guns other than mine on the 10km of our road off the Trans Canada Highway. None of my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren have the slightest interest.

There will never be security of what gun rights we have now. How could there? Those who have power always use it. We atavistically bully the different, the weak and take pleasure in putting them in their place. Robust institutions we once relied on for trust, justice and strength abjure to majorities. We weaken ourselves by arbitrarily making castes of warriors within our tent. The anti-gun crowd only has to wait. They'll accommodate no one.

My criticism of our movement has been mostly of the bickering among ourselves. If truth be known, the bickering and nastiness has less do do with who is or isn't anti-gun. An anti-gunner on an international board has a gnat's eyelash of influence. The festering-boil nastiness is more about how members think of each other politically, the old-fashioned and unintelligent political posturing, using the board to further political interests. More castes: the good and the untouchables, liberals and conservatives.

Holding our current gun rights would be a great achievement. Doing what we're doing, there's no evidence of it ever happening. Being under attack is no excuse for it. We're always under attack. We will always be under attack. Only by being together regardless of our opinions can we anticipate holding on to our gun rights within our lifetimes---all bets off after that.

Craig, I think guys who write of their adventures are full of it. My dear Mom used to say, "Did you write it down? That's a wonderful story." I wrote nothing down of a long life of minor misdemeanours. Reporting is history on the fly anyway. I've already turned down an honorary degree from a reputable university for my reporting. I've told my children I'd turn down the Order of Canada---our country's highest honour---if it were offered. There are many others more deserving when they're handing out these things. Many don't deserve them; it's all campaigns and politics. So there won't be a book that you won't read!

some of youse are constantly whining here about the loss of your gun rights...

well, what about your fellow citizens who live in fear for one of their loved ones or themselves that they will be shot by someone with a gun? what about their rights?

First, remind 'em of their right to pursue happiness.

Then, it can go one 'o two ways. If they're an anti, oh well, it's inevitable, right. Maybe, call the proper authorities, cuz mr. civil bad guy would put the scenario on hold like below.

If they're a progunner, put the scenario on hold, again, and make an iron clad self defense fed law. Then, let 'em decide how to deter the criminal as the situation dictates, as is supposedly done thousands of times each year in the US.

Or, you can blame the H&H Royale that the criminal used and send it to the crusher after some lib judge no longer says it's evidence in the revolving door process.

On average we have about a 1 out of 280 chance of our cause of death being homicide by gunman. While you are huddling in your basement worrying about a bad man coming down the stairs to shoot you you should also worry about being killed by a drunk driver, eating french fries (congestive heart failure), staying out of the sun (Melanoma), drinking Big Gulps (diabetes), drowning during a flash flood, and, in your particular circumstances, being killed in an inadvertent oxy/acetylene explosion.

Give me a break.

Did you seriously just say this?

craig: what if they don't give a damn about guns, one way or the other. they are just afraid for themselves or their loved ones getting shot.

millions of people living in high crime areas feel this way. so, don't that have a right to be free of fear of getting shot?

mike: betcha if you lived in south Chicago, parts of LA or Detroit, etc, where the gun fire on the street is common, your attitude would not be so cavalier.

canvas: yeah I did...you see, millions of Americans don't give a damn about guns...they are just afraid of getting shot...so what about their right to be free of fear of getting shot?

Then I would suggest that they excersize their 2nd Ammendment rights like I do..........buy an effing gun and defend themselves should the occaision arise.

Both your favorite cities have had dem mayors for, well a long time. Any correlation? If you're making up rights, why not give 'em the right ask city hall for help.

For the folks who don't give a damn about guns, that's their right. Take your detroit for example, there're some folks who do exercise the pursuit of happiness, elsewhere.

Ed framed the ongoing debate, of which everyone here is familiar: the right of gun ownership and a perceived right of not requiring a gun for personal safety. All of us are for gun ownership except for the mentally ill. Most of us would prefer not to need a gun to stay alive at home or on the street. Can it be left there?

OK ed, why don't you lead by example and just give up all of your guns because someone has an irrational fear of inanimate objects. Enough with the posturing and lecturing. Just do it.

But you won't. You want law abiding Mike to give up his new AR 15 while you keep your torched beauties. But what of those poor folks who fear all guns? Give them up ed... it's not fair or right of you to be so unreasonable. What if I fear that Muslims may blow themselves up in suicide bombings? Can I ask that they all give up their rights to not have their homes searched without a warrant? What if we fear that young black males will rape, rob, or murder since statistics prove they are much more likely than any other ethnic group to be involved in those illegal activities? Can we round them up and imprison them just to play it safe? Do you see how ridiculous you are?

I can answer that. No you don't. But you are being stupid and ridiculous. Our Civil Rights are not a matter for discussion or negotiation. Not by you, and especially not by a Canadian who has done nothing to help the cause of gun rights in Canada. If you don't think this is right, you can move to some repressive country where the government will control everything. You and King can just move to Iran where you'll be safe and happy.

Once again, King Brown is being dishonest and LULLING. He is once again repeating his tired refrain that it's all going by the wayside, so why fight it?... it's only a matter of time before we die off and the anti- gunners win Only thing is, it's not going away like King says. The number of guns in the U.S. has increased by nearly 50% since Bill Clinton was elected. People who really didn't care whether they ever owned a gun went out and bought one when it looked like they might lose that chance. People who never dreamed of carrying a gun got one when Concealed Carry became widespread. And the blood in the streets that was predicted by the anti-gunners has not happened. Quite the opposite really.

Women and girls are getting into the shooting sports. The antis will lie and say that private ownership of guns has fallen in recent years, but actual sales numbers disprove that. Gun makers are building new and larger production lines in Southern states where Liberal Left Democrats aren't trying to put them out of business. So many more new shooters shooting so many more new guns that even after the ammo hoarders have become glutted, ammo is still in short supply... with the production lines running full tilt 24/7.

King knows all of this. He's said the same crap before, and has been corrected before. But that won't stop him from repeating the same tired lies.

And oh, the hand wringing about the dangers of not embracing guys like ed and King who do nothing to support and protect our firearms freedoms, and do much to undermine them. What a crock of shit! We don't need friends like you. You are no help, and never have been. There are plenty of new shooters who can and will be better than you ever were. We don't need to help roll the Trojan Horse into our midst.

You support and give cover to the anti-gunners King. The anti-gunners are actually worse than a heroin junkie who would break in and steal my guns. The junkie only wants my guns to sell for quick money to buy drugs. He does not care if I replace them with insurance or my own money. The anti-gunners want to take them, and they eventually want to make it impossible to buy more. You help those anti-gunners King. You support them. You praise them. If you lived here, you would vote for them. Don't pretend to be on our side. Actions speak far louder than your words. Don't pretend to be our friend.

Give it up King. We're on to you and your LULLING and lying. We don't need you writing the epitaph of gun ownership and shooting. It's not true. But if we allow ourselves to be fooled by folks like you who do so much to subvert our Second Amendment, it could come to pass. I aim to see that does not happen. Not here. Not anywhere. I'll go along with what one of our Framers said before I fall for any more of your lies:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Patrick Henry

My attitude is not cavalier.

And the chances of our cause of death being homicide committed by gunmen are about 1 in 280.

Here are the top ten leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

From watching the news you can't tell that COPD and the flu kill many times more people than gunmen can you?

So when you are hiding in your atomic bomb shelter you built in 1962 you can comfort yourself with the thought that that cigar or gallon of ice cream is many times more likely to kill you than a bad man with a semi-auto rifle.

Hope that data comforts you and your nervous neighbors.

so, grandmas sittin on the porch one hot night in the big city. shes enjoyin a cold one while watching her grand daughter playin with her dollies in the front yard...

yep, you got it, kid falls over with a bullet hole in her head. no sound, no warning. just dead...

we need to respect our fellow citizens right to be free of fear of being shot.

Well there was a lady washing dishes in her kitchen in Arizona. A meteorite came through her roof, then her kitchen ceiling. Yep, you guessed it,she fell over with a hole in her head. No sound. No warning. Just dead. Tell Grandma that story and give here something else to worry about.

There are people that think the world is flat and believe that if it were round we would fall off of it. Do we need to get rid of all the globes in the world because it makes the flat-worlders uncomfortable.

Many schizophrenics believe they are being followed by the CIA. That their thoughts are being listened to by means of an electronic bug implanted into their brains. Do we need to outlaw the CIA and electronics so those Schizophrenics will not suffer from that particular delusion.

Someone should tell Grandma and her daughter to put down the beers and get some exercise. That would help them avoid heart disease, which they are fifty times (5000%) more likely to die from than homicide by gunman. It would also help them avoid diabetes which they are seven times (700%) more likely to die from than by a gunman. And I don't know where Cirohssis (SP?) of the liver is on the list but there is always that risk. And if grandma and her daughter finish off the case and hop into the car for a beer run then they have a good chance of dying in a drunk wreck.

Exercise of religious rights makes some atheists uncomfortable.
Exercise of free speech makes some politically correct people and some hard-righters uncomfortable.
The fact that it is illegal for the police to profile makes some people uncomfortable.
Exercise of my right to keep and bear arms makes some people uncomfortable.

We can't give up Constitutional rights just because the exercise of those rights makes some delusional people uncomfortable.

Unless you come up with something new I will know you are just baiting and trolling.

Maybe, what you 'need' is to fear carpal tunnel, and get one uv dem dair autoreply programs. Hey, check your ocare, bet it's covered for those who help rid society of dangers. Hang on, ain't led poisoning illegal already.

Before you stigmatize, make sure the veep doesn't live near by and wasn't just popping a couple off at random. Ya see, rights are malleable, and if a dem or someone in the likeness of a dem causes the fear, then it's unfounded. Maybe, you'll get more mileage barking up the class warfare tree?

if the number of times people are hit with stray bullets were about the same as the number of times people were hit with stray meteorites, then there would be no point to this. however, there are far more people that are being hit with stray bullets in the metropolitan areas of this country than is acceptable.

besides, we have no way to control meteorites. however, we do have ways to control the misuse of firearms.

Ed's is this one of your customers trying out the torched POS you sold him ?
There should be a law against crooked hillbilly gun dealers selling time bombs like Ed's

I repeat: The chance of our cause of death being murder by gunman is 1/280. I thought your argument was about the fear caused by the delusion that some people have that they are likely to be shot?. I have shown that that fear is delusional. You haven't countered that argument.

But lets go on with the good we can do if we just eliminate some fundamental constitutional rights.

We can do something about the number one killer- heart disease. As I said you have about a 5000% higher chance of heart disease being your cause of death as murder by gunman. We can require all people to keep their Body Mass Index below 25. So a six foot tall person would be required to keep their weight below 184. We can have a monthly public weigh-in at the county courthouse so we know our new beneficial law is being enforced. We can outlaw the sale of ribeyes, hamburgers, mayonaise, eggs, potato chips, Cheetos, Ding Dongs, Crisco, butter, and margarine. We can outlaw deep-fried foods like french fries and hush puppies. Carbohydrate intake also builds up fat so we can outlaw sugar, Big Gulps, ice cream, sweet tea, pastries, Hershey bars, Snickers, and Peanut M&Ms. We can require our citizens to exercise in front of their computers every morning. This is so we can monitor them with web cams and know they are there exercising. And we can require them to do it for 45 minutes a day, just like in Orwell's "1984".

Then diabetes is a big killer. Most of what we need to legislate to do something about heart disease will also help prevent diabetes.

We should also prohibit alcohol. As I said before liver disease and drunk drivers take a bit toll on us. And much of the murder committed in the US is under the influence of alcohol.

All we have to do to pass all these laws is just repeal a few amendments. Then we will truly have made the country safer, and with much less freedom. And we could justify keeping the Second Amendment because we had saved so many lives by repealing those that kept us from protecting our citizens from themselves.

Or we could get out the message that people are being manipulated by a few politicians, newspapers and news channels and that the chance that their cause of death will be by a murderer with firearm is only 1/280.

Oh God, think of the children! If it will save just one life, then it will all be worthwhile.

What a load of slop! Ed, even though you are involved in the gun industry to make a living, you are as misinformed and fearful as it's possible to be.

Hey cback, aren't you glad such important issues got you posting again. Isn't this ed at his best. Swap out 'forum decorating' for 'torch 'em' up top, and it sort of runs along the same. He may 'fear' the no response thread.

Ed Good is a selfish, lying, greedy SOB,he cares not one whit about gun owners,rights,or ANYONE else except himself-just like his business/deceptive adds-return policy and torched guns !

We should BOYCOTT him-not that anyone here is foolish enough to purchase from Ed1 (Ed Good),just like Target.Its time to ignore Ed and not give him the platform.like every other board that has banned him (and 3 times on here) he need to be ignored.

No more posts in threads started by him (and his stupid stuck CAPS key),no more response to any posts.

He is laughing at us dancing to is tune,IGNORE the SOB and he will go away.

humm...first there is a call to permanently ban ed. now there is a call to boycott ed...this latest outrage, because I suggest here that there are other Americans who have rights that may be in conflict with some others who post here...

reminds me of a conversation I had with a former neighbor of mine. he and his parents escaped from Nazi Germany in the late thirties, when he was 13. he had been in the hitler youth, while still in Germany. one of the things he remembered from his experiences was an absolute intolerance of anyone who questioned the party line. he learned very quickly to keep his mouth shut and go along with the program, in order to get along.

well, guess what boys and girls and others here...this aint 1934. its 2014. an this aint Nazi Germany. its the U.S. of A., where we don't much care for Nazis or Nazi like practices here.

an, ah aint laughin and I aint dancin...too many people are getting shot by too many stray bullets in our cities...hits about time that responsible good citizens work together in a common goal to get some of the guns off the streets, in order to protect the general welfare of us all...humm...

an so much for forum decorum, eh what?

Ignoring is good advice, Dave, but boycotts make as much sense as bribing Dave Weber to ban Ed forever. I don't ignore anyone except those who can't help themselves. I don't know why Ed's notions of public safety gets so many knickers in a knot. Most members probably wish they didn't need a gun to stay alive at home and on the streets, and all members are against increasing gun control. Can't it be left at that?

well, cept ah aint no hillbilly. ah am ah redneck!

difference is, hillbillies can sang an dants an mak music on home maid in strew mints. us rednecks, on da utter han, we aint good fur much mo dan jes list tenin, toe tappin and drankin beer...YEE HAW!

gittin time to head north to cool, wonderful nova scotia...first two weeks of august is the best time to be there. weather is wonderful. people are wonderful. seafood is wonderful. wine is wonderful...an you aint gotta worry bout gittin hit by no stray bullet.

Yup- that's gonna leave a mark- or two!!

now foxie, that aint funny...

Not to beat on the ole dead horse, but ed clearly calls for gun control. He doesn't refer to public safety, just feelings. Maybe, since we can't see his facial expression and analyze intent, we get stuck with what he types.

Here's a thought, there're times when you call for out right gun control. Then, there are times when you mention keeping the public safe from a nut criminal on a rampage, as being impossible. Then you say loss of rights are inevitable. I dunno, maybe we don't 'all' feel, oh oh there's that word again, the same way.

What if we 'left it at that', who looses.

craig: my so called call for gun control is limited to discussion of restriction on certain classes of firearms, where they are being misused so much so, that their very presence in the hands of the public has become a public safety issue...such as in many metropolitan areas where there are so many stray bullets flying around that a lot of people are feeling helpless and afraid of getting shot.

Firearms that come under the mis-identified description of assault weapons (AR-15's and any other semi auto rifle or carbine) are used in the minority of firearms related crimes. They are the least likely to be used in any violent crime.

brian: I tend to agree, but don't know for sure.

do you have any stats that indicate which types of firearms are most likely to be misused? semi auto hand guns should be high on the list, certainly, just because there are so many of them in the hands of the general public.

From rifles (all types) for one year 323 vs 6220 for handguns.

From the Wall Street Journal, as quoted form FBI Crime Report

Assault’ rifles are not involved in many U.S. murders: A look at the data
The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323.
The irony is, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic and long-term decline in murder since 1980, even as mass shootings seem to have increased. Social scientists aren’t entirely sure why.

As for rifles, they are used even less than body parts, blunt instruments or sharp objects to commit murder.
In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolrepo...ok-at-the-data/





January 16, 2013, 3:23 PM ETThe number involving handguns? A whopping 6,220. Or 49% of the 12,664 homicides committed in the U.S. in 2011, according to FBI data. And that’s a longstanding pattern. See murder statistics by weapon.

The huge gap suggests President Obama’s call for new firearm restrictions would do little to reduce the number people murdered each year – even if a reluctant Congress were to pass all his requests. His proposals don’t really addresss handguns.

brian: new federally mandated firearms restrictions are not a good idea...mostly, because different areas of the country have different needs. as was pointed out here, what is needed in the big cities aint necessarily what is needed in more rural areas. even state level firearms restrictions may not be appropriate. seems like firearms restriction should be left to the lowest level of regulatory authority...however, unless there is severe and swift punishment for criminal misuse of firearms, it will be all for naught.

I would disagree. It would be a very bad idea to allow any municipality, county, or state to decide on our constitutional rights . Read that plural. Not just about guns. Towns, cities etc. deciding what is appropriate to read or say? I think not. Constitutional rights are rights we enjoy regardless of state boundaries.
Instead of looking at restricting the rights of the law abiding, why not focus on the criminal element, the mentally ill and the sheep that don’t want to protect themselves.
Remember, heroin is illegal and all over the US there is an explosion of heroin sales, use and trafficking. How could that be? They outlawed heroin decades ago. Those laws should have magically made it go away never to return. Remember, opiates were over the counter dugs used by law abiding citizens at one time. Now, being illegal, there is a huge trade in them and criminals don’t seem to worry about getting it , selling it or using it, and society pays the price.

Bullshit....lets round up the libtards affraid of guns..and those who want to take away anyone elses guns and put them on a desert Island....I bet they still find ways to kill each other.

WHere restrictions should be is with the police, and DHS...and every other non-police government agency....none of them need automatic weapons...armored cars...rocket launchers or anything else they didn't have 40 years ago.

If THEY are allowed to have those....WE should be allowed to have them as well.

BHD,
spot on. the militarization of law enforcement in this country is appalling. And, the Obama Administration is pushing heavily for further militarization.

It was BHO who said the following on July 2nd, 2008
Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a “Civilian National Security Force.” He further promised it would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.

"CNSF" O'Bammy's updated version of Hitler's SS!

Agree that the militarization of police forces is disturbing; however,I would suggest reading Factcheck regarding the quote about the Civilian National Security Force.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

ed, you still have not answered my reply to your post about the poor folk who fear our guns as cause to discuss making concessions to the anti-gunners.

Now you add an equally ridiculous argument about people who fear getting shot by stray bullets. It's much more likely for a child or pedestrian to be injured or killed by a car or truck they don't see or hear coming.

But have you taken a lead in addressing these fears and gotten rid of your guns ed? You can't just put some lipstick on them and sell them. The buyer might fire stray shots that kill someone. Or they might get stolen by gangbangers who use them to kill someone. You need to lead by example and destroy them.

Why do you feel we should get rid of some or all of our guns when you refuse to even discuss getting rid of yours. Come on ed, stop being a petty selfish hypocrite.

https://news.yahoo.com/as-wars-wind-down--small-town-cops-inherit-armored-vehicles-233505138.html

Ed is a greedy, lying, out for himself and ONLY himself, SOB.He care not one whit about others and their gun rights he is concerned with one thing lining his pockets from unknowing buyers !

He should not be in the gun business,he is not a gun person he is just a sick-one look at his demented posts looking for attention ( and pushing his wares on the "lets talk double guns" thread),he needs serious help not attention.The very best thing we can do rid this board of him is to ignore all his posts and he will disappear

boring...

here is an excerpt of what he said according to factcheck: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Fact Check didn't refute his words, they only tried to obfuscate his intent by connecting them to his mention of the peace corps/AmeriCorps type organizations and imply that he was talking about expanding them.

Their taking Obamas references to the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps and other such agencies and saying that's what he means is disingenuous at best. none of those agencies are security forces of any nature. There is no correlation between the volunteer and service type organizations and a security force.

put it in context: why does the US Dept. of Education , The Consumer Product Safety Commission, nd the Office Of personnel Management , to name a few have their own SWAT teams???
Many liberal news organizations reported this also. This wasnt some obscure quote taken out of context by some radical blog.

Fact Check is funded by the heirs to the Annenbergs and Bill Ayers chaired it is very biased to the socialist/progressive movement.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.
The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.