SkyDekker 1,155
habeas corpus gets suspended and I didn't see one gun owner stand up and protect the the US constitution from these pen strokes.
It all makes nice sound bites, but the reasoning is absolute bullcrap.
It all makes nice sound bites, but the reasoning is absolute bullcrap.
kallend 1,679
Randy, you really need to calm down before you pop a vein or something.
Do you really think your outrage is convincing anyone?
Do you really think your outrage is convincing anyone?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jm951 0
Let's view this in skydiving terms.-
Canopy X- 125ft is dangerous- it should be banned, people have been killed under it.
Canopy Y- 150ft is similar to X, it should be highly restricted to only licensed pilots who pay an exhorbitant fee to fedgod for the privilege.
Canopy Z- 320ft safe for all (how much swooping you gonna do with that!?!)
BASE/Wingsuit- all highly dangerous- total ban.
Would you be willing to sit still for that? It all boils down to personal liberty and personal responsibility for your own actions. There is NO constitutional right to jump out of airplanes or off fixed objects, there IS one about owning firearms. As much as I object to skydiving being tightly regulated by the feds along the gun control model, imagine how much more I object to infringing on the 2nd. I like my freedom very much, socialist control freaks need not even try to take it away.
Now let's look at Law Enforcement (no offense meant to cops). LE is an ex post facto proposition by nature. They do not arrest someone on the basis they "might" commit a crime. Why should my gun ownership be treated that way? Cops show up after the fact, take a report, hopefully catch the perp. Are you willing to bet your life, limb and property on the off chance a cop will show up at the exact moment a perp is doing his thing? Here's some interesting info-
http://flyservers.registerfly.com/members5/policecrime.com/policeprotection.html
Don't even think for a moment the cops can protect you from the crooks. They're not legally obligated to respond to any 911 call within any time frame.
Finally, think you're safe from the cops??
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
It's a dangerous world out there, I prefer to be armed.
Canopy X- 125ft is dangerous- it should be banned, people have been killed under it.
Canopy Y- 150ft is similar to X, it should be highly restricted to only licensed pilots who pay an exhorbitant fee to fedgod for the privilege.
Canopy Z- 320ft safe for all (how much swooping you gonna do with that!?!)
BASE/Wingsuit- all highly dangerous- total ban.
Would you be willing to sit still for that? It all boils down to personal liberty and personal responsibility for your own actions. There is NO constitutional right to jump out of airplanes or off fixed objects, there IS one about owning firearms. As much as I object to skydiving being tightly regulated by the feds along the gun control model, imagine how much more I object to infringing on the 2nd. I like my freedom very much, socialist control freaks need not even try to take it away.
Now let's look at Law Enforcement (no offense meant to cops). LE is an ex post facto proposition by nature. They do not arrest someone on the basis they "might" commit a crime. Why should my gun ownership be treated that way? Cops show up after the fact, take a report, hopefully catch the perp. Are you willing to bet your life, limb and property on the off chance a cop will show up at the exact moment a perp is doing his thing? Here's some interesting info-
http://flyservers.registerfly.com/members5/policecrime.com/policeprotection.html
Don't even think for a moment the cops can protect you from the crooks. They're not legally obligated to respond to any 911 call within any time frame.
Finally, think you're safe from the cops??
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
It's a dangerous world out there, I prefer to be armed.
Quote
Randy, you really need to calm down before you pop a vein or something.
Do you really think your outrage is convincing anyone?
Huh?
Wow I am calm as can be, drinking coffee, reading news and DZ.com
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuote
Randy, you really need to calm down before you pop a vein or something.
Do you really think your outrage is convincing anyone?
Huh?
Wow I am calm as can be, drinking coffe reading news and DZ.com
Decaf?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Might as well drink near beer!
billvon 2,476
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You know, by demonizing people you disagree with in such
>harsh terms, you demonize yourself, as well as your cause . . .
Yep. When a gun advocate responds thoughtfully and directly to a post here, they have the possibility of swaying someone's opinion. When they call the poster names and question his intelligence, they indicate that they are irrational gun nuts who probably _should_ be regulated more heavily.
Fortunately, most second-amendment right supporters are more reasonable than that.
>harsh terms, you demonize yourself, as well as your cause . . .
Yep. When a gun advocate responds thoughtfully and directly to a post here, they have the possibility of swaying someone's opinion. When they call the poster names and question his intelligence, they indicate that they are irrational gun nuts who probably _should_ be regulated more heavily.
Fortunately, most second-amendment right supporters are more reasonable than that.
jarrodh 0
QuoteWhen a gun advocate responds thoughtfully and directly to a post here, they have the possibility of swaying someone's opinion
Thats what Im waiting for...
2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!
jm951 0
I could cite FBI stats, DOJ stats, and tons of anecdotal and historical evidence to the contrary of the gun control advocates position. They won't change their minds, so your saying reasoned evidence might "sway" somebody is more than likely a false assertion.
It boils down to some people don't like the fact that others don't like the gvt or anybody else messing around with their personal freedom and security. Those same people will vote for expansion of the fedgvt and more rules and regs until freedom is a distant memory.
It boils down to some people don't like the fact that others don't like the gvt or anybody else messing around with their personal freedom and security. Those same people will vote for expansion of the fedgvt and more rules and regs until freedom is a distant memory.
SkyDekker 1,155
QuoteThose same people will vote for expansion of the fedgvt and more rules and regs until freedom is a distant memory.
Isn't it ironic that in the last couple of years it is the traditionally pro-gun Republicans who have been doing excatly that? Yet, not too many people have come forward with their guns in hand and said they would be taking a stand.....
kallend 1,679
QuoteI could cite FBI stats, DOJ stats, and tons of anecdotal and historical evidence to the contrary of the gun control advocates position. .
Please post the FBI and DoJ stats. Don't bother with the anecdotes.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jm951 0
I'm not happy with the current Repubs, but the Dems offer literally nothing, in fact, they have a history of pushing gun control on the law abiding instead of locking up the crooks. So we gun owners have to vote as best we can.
If you think we gun owners aren't watching, you should hang out on some of the firearms boards. If you knew everything that got proposed you'd wonder if we had a politburo instead of Congress.
If you think we gun owners aren't watching, you should hang out on some of the firearms boards. If you knew everything that got proposed you'd wonder if we had a politburo instead of Congress.
jm951 0
For convenience, I provide links to two sources that link to the references you're asking for. IF you hold your nose that it's the NRA or GOA and choose to ignore that they reference publically available material, then you're being intellectually dishonest and rational discussion is not possible on this topic.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=128
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206
follow the sites listed in the notes section, straight from BATF, FBI and others
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
again, follow sites listed in the notes
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=128
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206
follow the sites listed in the notes section, straight from BATF, FBI and others
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
again, follow sites listed in the notes
Guest
Indeed, they have. I dig Oleg Volk. I've been checking out his stuff since 1998.
mh
.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend 1,679
No, it's a stupid point. Other nations have demonstated very nicely that a right to firearms is not necessary to a stable Constitution.
Did the 2nd Amendment prevent the imposition of the amendment imposing prohibition and its subsequent overturning "by stroke of a pen"? NO.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0
"Maggots"? Wow.
You know, by demonizing people you disagree with in such harsh terms, you demonize yourself, as well as your cause: the many, many people on the fence on the issue will be so put off by your demeanor, which they will find scary, that you will push them over to the other side.
Plenty of conservatives favor gun control laws, and plenty of liberals favor free range for 2nd Amendment rights. Your incorrect presumptions aside, cheap slogans which do nothing more than barf out the word "libs" are a weak substitute for thoughtful analysis and cogent expression.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee 1,280
Bullshit. I do love you guys' inflated sense of self importance, I really do.
Please Mr Gunowner, save me from the naughty commies and fascists!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0
No, it's a stupid point. Other nations have demonstated very nicely that a right to firearms is not necessary to a stable Constitution.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites