Many shooters are frogs.

[ericire12]

I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?

All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions.  Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!

So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.

I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?

Comment of the day award!





*Tom, your comment which referenced the ACLU only thinking there were 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights was a close second.

[fullautovalmet76]

Comment of the day award!



*Tom, your comment which referenced the ACLU only thinking there were 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights was a close second.

Thanks, Eric! I will display my trophy with pride! 

Usually Tom says what I'm thinking, but he gets to the point much faster, and with style!! 

[PegLeg45]

I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?

All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions.  Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!

So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.

I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?

I have used the same tactics in several debates with anti-gun people myself. It is usually met with a blank stare as they try to comprehend the reasoning behind their own hypocrisy.
For example, I was sitting next to a fellow (in a bar) whom had just lost his license due to his THIRD DUI. He was railing on how guns are dangerous and kill people, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When I mentioned the fact that drunken and/or inattentive drivers kill many more people on the roads than guns do in a year, he just got this blank look and tried to change the subject. I then allowed that by his reasoning, because I lost my leg and nearly died due to a person not paying attention while driving, we should should just arbitrarily ban ALL automobiles. He got up and left.

[fullautovalmet76]

I have used the same tactics in several debates with anti-gun people myself. It is usually met with a blank stare as they try to comprehend the reasoning behind their own hypocrisy.
For example, I was sitting next to a fellow (in a bar) whom had just lost his license due to his THIRD DUI. He was railing on how guns are dangerous and kill people, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When I mentioned the fact that drunken and/or inattentive drivers kill many more people on the roads than guns do in a year, he just got this blank look and tried to change the subject. I then allowed that by his reasoning, because I lost my leg and nearly died due to a person not paying attention while driving, we should should just arbitrarily ban ALL automobiles. He got up and left.

First of all, sorry about what happened to you.....

I'm you sure realize this as much as I: though logic is on our side, emotions and hype is what drives this debate. Most do not want to accept what we are saying; and despite all of the empirical evidence that supports us too.....

[PegLeg45]

First of all, sorry about what happened to you.....

I'm you sure realize this as much as I: though logic is on our side, emotions and hype is what drives this debate. Most do not want to accept what we are saying; and despite all of the empirical evidence that supports us too.....

Yes, most are ostriches with their heads in the sand.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Thanks, Eric! I will display my trophy with pride! 

Usually Tom says what I'm thinking, but he gets to the point much faster, and with style!! 

But you do it with out cussing

[TAB]

The NRA has done all of that stuff every chance they have gotton...

[PegLeg45]

But you do it with out cussing

A well-placed cuss-word now and again for emphasis ain't gonna hurt nobody...........

[Thanos]

It is This is so wrong. A SCOTUS justice once stated that you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I would argue you do have that right, especially if there is a fire you have a moral obligation to clear the building. If there is no fire, then any damage to person or property that transpired due to the rush out of the building is also your responsibility. It is about rights - and the responsibilities that come with them.

You are taking this out of context, Justice Holmes wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Schenck v. United )

Read carefully it says falsely shouting. Therefore I would contend you do NOT have a total right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

[tombogan03884]

You are taking this out of context, Justice Holmes wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Schenck v. United )

Read carefully it says falsely shouting. Therefore I would contend you do NOT have a total right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

The problem with what you say is that if the person accused had some objection to the movie he would say that he did it as an act of protest to get people away from unfit material and his lawyer would get him off.
Burning the American flag is desecration, but if I or any other Veteran, or non veteran, uses force to prevent that desecration, WE would be jailed for violating the scumbags non existent "right to freedom of expression".