Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Lan]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

blanco5:
Well, we know who the first 1,100 people the government is going after!

My answer:
blanco5,
Just WHO do you think the government would send?
Team Sergeant

Thank you for sharing this Team Sergeant. It's an honor to witness what I believe is a pivotal moment in American History. I quoted this because blanco5 made a comment typical of someone who chooses his 1A over his 2A. We have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason, and if the typical liberal listened more they would understand that our 1A doesn't mean much without our 2A. Non thinking people like him are what will ultimately lead to the demise of our liberties. The most recent election proved they are the majority IMO.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

And for the politicians who are doing everything they falsely believe will better our society, or the ones who propose legislation that infringes on my safety to push a liberal agenda in an effort to be re elected-

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I appreciate the 1100 Quiet Professionals who made their stance known.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Lan

I appreciate the 1100 Quiet Professionals who made their stance known.

dido!

and there many others like yourself whom will not wavier.

Yours Truly,

Tired of wimps, whiners, freeloaders, lairs, and emotionally void intellectuals with poor reading comprehension and logic skills imposing their fears and limitations on others.

Boy that felt good...

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by badshot

dido!

and there many others like yourself whom will not wavier.

Yours Truly,

Tired of wimp's, winer's, freeloader's, lair's, and emotionally void intellectuals with poor reading comprehension and logic skills imposing their fears and limitations on others.

Boy that felt good...

How ironic!

[badshot]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

How ironic!

Indeed

[pcfixer]

Looks like some has the intestinal fortitude to just say it! ( Ie balls)

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by badshot

Indeed

I'm not sure what you meant by the above... with the , but I was attempting to point out the irony of your criticism of people with "poor reading comprehension and logic skills" in a post filled with poor spelling and punctuation.

Spellcheck is your friend.

(Note to Newbies:
Some might say this is not important, but it is. The value of your words is lessened by poor spelling and grammar. Take your time. If what you have to say is important, it is worth saying well.)

[SF18C]

After watching the POTUS give the SOTU address my thoughts...

I agree with one thing BHO said: Let's have a vote!


Put YOUR name on the line that strips the 2nd A from us! Let us know where YOU stand!

Congress, let's have a vote!

[badshot]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I'm not sure what you meant by the above... with the , but I was attempting to point out the irony of your criticism of people with "poor reading comprehension and logic skills" in a post filled with poor spelling and punctuation.

Spellcheck is your friend.

(Note to Newbies:
Some might say this is not important, but it is. The value of your words is lessened by poor spelling and grammar. Take your time. If what you have to say is important, it is worth saying well.)

Thanks, I'll use my friend next time...and will correct the post when near a PC.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by badshot

...and will correct the post when near a PC.

Too late. First impressions and such. Good luck in your next life.

Richard

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Richard

Too late. First impressions and such. Good luck in your next life.

Richard

And so it goes...

[bluebb]

Originally Posted by Richard
Too late. First impressions and such. Good luck in your next life.
Richard

Originally Posted by Badshot
and so it goes...

Badshot

oh snap

[pcfixer]

NRA found this document

Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
Deputy Director National Institute of Justice

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

Memo from DOJ

http://americanvisionnews.com/5476/n...mo#commentlist

[Badger52]

How embarassing for the NRA. Even the 2nd source reference gets it wrong, calling it a DoJ memo and then citing what it really is, a study by the Nat'l Institute of Justice. One is a Big Gov agency, the other a think-tank that takes grants & does studies. (They also did a similar one that examined the efficacy of the Clinton AWB.)

If you will give a reasonable read of the document you will see they are documenting what the prevalent thought process is for simplistic advocates of gun control, then what the actual measures needed are to make such an idiocy work, and then a discussion.

They get grant money sometimes from DoJ but when the result comes out looking like this - as many of the post-Clinton CDC studies did - you'll notice that the DoJ is not very quick to publish and say, "a-HA!"

Finally, 'cause I'm tired, they get their source of illegal gun information from....
drum roll please....
the ATF. If you look at the chart/graphic they provide you'll see that this is not saying 47% of sales are straw purchases, it's 47% of the illegal guns, which is an unknowable number even if you're a Big G agency running sting storefronts in Milwaukee. (sorry, bad example)

Frankly, one of the things that drives despots crazy with the issue of private sales of any kind is that they don't have the widget they can count. They know there are hundreds of millions of firearms out there based on 4473 actions. But - what - about - the - ones - they - don't - know - about ?

It's a study, worthy of a thorough read, not just the Adobe highlights added by a blog.

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by Badger52

How embarassing for the NRA. Even the 2nd source reference gets it wrong, calling it a DoJ memo and then citing what it really is, a study by the Nat'l Institute of Justice. One is a Big Gov agency, the other a think-tank that takes grants & does studies. (They also did a similar one that examined the efficacy of the Clinton AWB.)

If you will give a reasonable read of the document you will see they are documenting what the prevalent thought process is for simplistic advocates of gun control, then what the actual measures needed are to make such an idiocy work, and then a discussion.

They get grant money sometimes from DoJ but when the result comes out looking like this - as many of the post-Clinton CDC studies did - you'll notice that the DoJ is not very quick to publish and say, "a-HA!"

Finally, 'cause I'm tired, they get their source of illegal gun information from....
drum roll please....
the ATF. If you look at the chart/graphic they provide you'll see that this is not saying 47% of sales are straw purchases, it's 47% of the illegal guns, which is an unknowable number even if you're a Big G agency running sting storefronts in Milwaukee. (sorry, bad example)

Frankly, one of the things that drives despots crazy with the issue of private sales of any kind is that they don't have the widget they can count. They know there are hundreds of millions of firearms out there based on 4473 actions. But - what - about - the - ones - they - don't - know - about ?

It's a study, worthy of a thorough read, not just the Adobe highlights added by a blog.

Good explaination. Most importantly as I see it is the "plan" of the administration and DOJ to have universal background checks, registration of all firearms, nationwide gun buy back ( will not work). This all leads to a confiscation program no doubt. It is the intent to 'control' the population by disarmament.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

Good explaination. Most importantly as I see it is the "plan" of the administration and DOJ to have universal background checks, registration of all firearms, nationwide gun buy back ( will not work). This all leads to a confiscation program no doubt. It is the intent to 'control' the population by disarmament.

I agree that would be some of their goals. I'm just also pointing out that their own studies, which objectively told them in all candor one (of many) ways ahead, have also told them it won't accomplish much. Other than to disarm citizens.

This is a case where both sides are highlighting their favorite parts of the same page. For one it's to sound a klaxon, for the other it's to help them in their playbook & talking points. Both miss the results of all these studies that indicate - THIS STUFF DOESN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING in terms of mitigating what their rhetoric says is their concern, something the QP's published treatise has addressed most eloquently.