The NRA takes no prisoners

[Bill McIntyre]

What a shame. Here is a real hunter brought down by the guys who want guns for toys. My father was an early NRA member and a lifelong hunter, but he sure as well would side with Zumbo if he were still alive.
******************************************

'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy
Zumbo's Criticism of Hunters Who Use Assault Rifles Brings Unforgiving
Response From U.S. Gun Culture

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; A03


SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A
mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log
cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life
writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the
country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within
America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It
all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of
military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for
prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these
weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the
Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As
hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who
terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them
'terrorist' rifles."

The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across
the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and
from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and
unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting
soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.

His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime
career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest
names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or
are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an
example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who
challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style
firearms.

From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests
for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA
officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.

In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo,
the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts
to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay
careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA
statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down
Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense
singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on
semi-automatic firearms."

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual
foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis,
Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has
trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for
hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray
said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."

Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many
champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the
organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a
distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as
shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters,
who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights
causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but
less cash.

The NRA appeared to be saying as much in its statement Thursday, when it
emphasized that the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a
"divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed.

"Jim Zumbo Outdoors" was not broadcast as scheduled last week on the
Outdoor Channel and will not air next week, said Mike Hiles, a spokesman
for the channel. He said sponsors have requested that they be removed
from the program. The show "will be in hiatus for an undetermined period
of time," he said.

Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also
came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the
magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He
wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962.

The magazine's editor in chief, Todd W. Smith, said that Zumbo submitted
his resignation after hearing of the large number of readers (about
6,000, at last count) who had sent e-mails demanding his dismissal. Smith
dismissed as "conjecture" a question about whether Zumbo would have been
fired had he not resigned.

"Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation,"
Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call
these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are
painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being
called terrorists."

When he wrote his now-notorious blog entry, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in
Wyoming sponsored by Remington, a detail he noted in the entry.

That mention -- as it bounced around in recent days among a number of
assault-weapon Web sites -- triggered a call for a boycott of Remington
products.

That prompted Remington to issue a news release, saying that it has
"severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately."

Remington chief executive Tommy Millner issued a personal appeal to gun
owners who might be thinking about boycotting the company's products:
"Rest assured that Remington not only does not support [Zumbo's] view, we
totally disagree," Millner said. "I have no explanation for his
perspective. I proudly own AR's and support everyone's right to do so!"

Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that
criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt.

"I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed
early."

[junior]

I have no sympathy for someone who can sit dead center in the middle of something for so many years and not have the sense to know what would happen should he veer. It is what it is :sleep:

[Bill McIntyre]

He may have been naive, but maybe he was right in the middle 40 years ago when he joined, and the center moved away from him. Like my Dad, he was hunter, not a gun nut. There is a difference.

Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many
champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the
organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a
distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as
shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters,
who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights
causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but
less cash.

He apparently didn't realize that they would be quite that vicious and try to destroy anyone who didn't tow the party line.

[junior]

Perhaps he missed that part, but I doubt he is blind too. Anyway, I would anticipate such a move and I'm not even an NRA member. Those guys are absolutely adamant about their right to bear arms. I'm sure you will get some of the "usual suspects" roped in on this one though:D

[Bill McIntyre]

I guess you're right. Any sentient being in the US should realize how nasty the NRA can get with those who disagree, and he was even a member.

The Spanish Inquisition looked like a benevolent organization by comparison.

[Scale Buster]

I like the part where he says he will go on a hunt with one to make things right

[bgbill]

Bill,

He made some stupid comments, and some of his statements were not factually correct, and he paid the price, just like when the Dixie Chicks made stupid comments, they paid a price,

No one is stopping them from making their comments, it is just that their audience is somewhat smaller now.

The NRA is primarily a Gun Rights organization, they also fight for hunters rights, but that is not their main purpose.

There are some hunters that feel elitist because they use an over under or side by side shotgun, or a bolt action rifle and they think the use of a semi automatic rifle or if the rifle is black, it is unsporting, kind of like the fly fisherman, and some free divers who think they are better than the other guys.

His term "Assault Rifle" is incorrect as in most of the uses of the term, like in the "Assault Weapons Ban", they did not ban assault rifles, they banned rifles based on their looks and accessories, none of which made them any more deadly than a traditional rifle, that the hunters use.

Then he steps it up a notch saying they are terrorist rifles, and people are torrorizing the world with them.

The guy is a moron for making comments like that.

[Wayward Son]

It's funny how you want to stick this on the NRA, when the reality is that they didn't actually do a damned thing.

This was a grass roots uprising, pure & simple. If you frequented any of the gun & hunting boards would would have seen it in action. Jim's carreer was dead before the NRA had a chance to publicly say a single word about it. They were about the last of his sponsors to make it known they were dropping him.

An AR-15 is a semi auto lead launcher. Functionally no different from the Remington 740/742/7400 or Browning BAR rifles, or semi auto shotguns that have been in the hunting fields for a century. They just look different.

I rarely hunt with my AR, the last time I recall doing so was 7 years ago. But the fact of the matter is that it is more accurate than most people's bolt action rifles & quite well suited for hunting.

Congress had a bill indroduced on th 13th of this month to renew th Clinton gun & magazine bad -permanently- as well as ban ALL semi auto shotguns, most rifle including the Ruger 10/22 rimfire, & many hadguns.

About a week later Zumbo posts this blog & call me & a few million like me terrorists. I did not contact a single one of his sponsors, but I'm not shedding any tears over the consequences he's suffering for his words.

I don't like being stabbed in the back.

[Wayward Son]

On that note, I'd like it if these politicians are paying attention. It took less than 36 hours from Jim posting his blog to complete his carreer suicide. Without the NRA, GOA or any other organized group so much as sending out an email.

The owners of these guns, whether they use them for hunting or not, rose up, on their own & hammered his employers & sponsors. Some of these companies have spent millions fighting for our gun rights & I really don't think it took the customers to convince them, they simply decided that the association with him was a bad one. Remington comes to mind, the CEO, himself an owner of AR-15's, let it be known the very next day that Remington did not agree, had in fact spent over $20 million over the years in these fights & would have nothing further to do with him. That was on saturday. On sunday they had statement on their web page that this was in the works & on monday they had a formal statement.

I didn't see anything out of the NRA until wednesday, maybe 2 days after it was largely over.

[dugout]

Firearms are tools, and just like any other group of tools, they can be mis-used. If there is anything we should have learned from the aftermath of Katrina, in New Orleans, is we, as free Americans, are ultimately responsible for ourselves. The government and law enforcement may not, will not, and can not keep the peace under all circumstances. An armed populace is a safer populace, if by nothing more than the deterrent represented.

Yes, there is a vast difference between a sporting arms and armament, or weapons. If I am responsible for protecting my family I can assure you I will not be reaching for a 20ga. Parker or a 270 Model 70. These are the wrong tools for the job. When our founding fathers had the forethought to include the second amendment to our constitution, arms was not meant to be "Grouse Guns". I have guns which I collect. I have guns with which I hunt. I also have weapons which were designed and built for the sole purpose of anti-personnel. I pay for expensive fees to own some of these weapons, which is another debate. My right to own all these weapons are protected under the 2nd amendment and by the NRA. No, the NRA is not always right and I have my own issues with them, at times, but this is what they do. They protect my right to own all of these tools and I pray to God I never have to use some of them.

[DIVERTOM]

He should have thought twice before saying that. I'm a member of the NRA
and will support their decision on this matter.

[jackpine savage]

Sounds like they are just a bunck of pricks to me. Who cares what some guy says, they should have let it go.

[Wayward Son]

The antis care, that's who. It took the Bradys less than 24 hours to quote him as "proof" that our guns need to be banned. They will be using his words to motivate their supporters to send money & put pressure on congress to do so.

In one paragraph he lit the fuse on a shitload of tampons. He gave the gun grabbers ammo to use against us. Despite the fact that in the blog itself he stated how utterly ignorant of these guns & their uses he was, he then went on to call them "terrorist rifles" which brands owners of them as terrorists & called for them to be banned from use in the field.

Well, by damned, if you're ****ing ignorant of a subject & start out by admitting that, then that's a good time to shut the **** up until you're better educated on the subject rather than start making strongly biased statements that give strength to the opposition & undermine everything your side has been fighting for for decades.

[jackpine savage]

I have no problem with anyone owning a firearm. I see the NRA and I see a lobby that is no different than the trial lawyers lobby or any other lobby, whether liberal or conservative. They all throw money into the political system causing its corruption. I would b very happy to see all of the political lobbys go away.

[DIVERTOM]

Calm down Wayward, don't give yourself a heart attack. Our guns are not
going anywhere.

[Wayward Son]

That remains to be determined. Have you read HR1022 yet? If enough people get off their asses & hammer the house like they hammered Zumbos sponsors we may well kill it.

My point is that what Zumbo did was not "nothing", he did a fair bit of damage to our side & we'll be dealing with that damage for some years to come.

[jackpine savage]

wayward, while I have no use for the NRA, this Northeast liberal will fight to protect your rights under the Constitution.

[Wayward Son]

With friends like him, I don't need friends.

[Wayward Son]

wayward, while I have no use for the NRA, this Northeast liberal will fight to protect your rights under the Constitution.

My wife & I are the NRA. Too bad you don't like us.

[jackpine savage]

Its not you Wayward or your wife, I am sure you are both great people. its the whole idea of political lobbys no matter what issue they deal with. I feel that they are one of the problems with the corruption of our political system.

[Wayward Son]

I see your point, but the system is what it is. And so long as the govt has the power to meddle in our lives, take our money, property & rights, and even go further so as to give them to others, the need for lobbying will exist. Which I think means pretty much forever.

Keep in mind that petitioning our govt is one of those pesky rights of ours, as is freedom of association.

[jackpine savage]

good point, just wish the money could somehow be taken out of the system. Look at the people running for president, they aren't the best candidates just the ones who have access to a lot of money. Sadly, some of the best candidates can't run because they can't afford to challenge a Hillary or McCain.

[Wayward Son]

One of the great ironies of this is that their use as hunting guns was largely spawned by the anti's running around claiming that they weren't any good for it.

Due to this, people who had them & knew them thought "Hmmmm, it's rugged, designed for dependable field use, largely unaffected by weather & accurate. Sounds like a good hunting rifle to me, let's go & try it!"

Fast forward 20 years or so to now, when a huge number of people routinely use them for hunting, with a growing body of hunters who have made them their first choice for the job.

So now Zumbo reports just over a week ago that he's finally heard of people using them to hunt & is stunned by this, he had no idea!

Hell, the man's been writing about guns & hunting for 40 years. The use of these guns for hunting has gotten a tremendous amount of ink over the last 15 years or so. There are companies that have sprung up for the sole purpose of making these guns with a high degree of accuracy for any legitimate use, from competition in the annual National Match games at Camp Perry to predator & big game hunters to home defense. Quite likely there are hundreds of thousands who use them to hunt & certainly the private ownership numbers in the millions.

But he never heard of any of this.

They're not assault weapons, they are semi automatic rifles. By definition an assault weapon is capable of full auto fire & that is NOT what we're talking about here. Most states allow semi auto's to be used for hunting & require magazines with specific maximum capacity. 5 rounds for center fire rifles is no uncommon.

A Remington 7400 with a 5 round clip differs from an AR15 with a 5 round clip in what way, precisely? Each holds the same number of rounds. Each fires once per trigger pull. Each loads the subsequent round by using the gas/energy from the prior round to work the action.

Oh, and the AR is typically more accurate than the 7400 (I get 5 round 100 yard groups measuring a bit over 0.5 inches with mine & my handloads). Who wants to go on record as saying that hunters should be required by law to hunt game with a less accurate rifle than may be available to them?

That is what Zumbo did.

He doesn't hunt with them, fine. He could have expressed himself in a perfectly acceptable way. Something like "I've never hunted with these guns. I'm a traditionalist & prefer bolt action rifles of wood & blued steel & these rifles just hold no appeal for me." and none of these pissed off people would have batted an eye.

[FredT]

I have no problem with anyone owning a firearm. I see the NRA and I see a lobby that is no different than the trial lawyers lobby or any other lobby, whether liberal or conservative. They all throw money into the political system causing its corruption. I would b very happy to see all of the political lobbys go away.

Jack, there is a tremendous difference in the NRA, and the anti-gun "groups". The difference is the NRA is an organization of motivated members. Almost all of it's funding comes in small under $100 donations from our 4 million + members with very little if any funding coming directly from any firearm manufacturer. They have their own advertising budgets to fill and don't like to share them with the NRA.

The "opposition" is an organization funded almost exclusively by huge donations from a few special interest foundations and individuals, with considerable interlocking of directorships. The last time I checked the numbers (Slick Willie was in office then) well over 80% of the "opposition" funding came from less than 500 individuals. It's probably higher now with the millions of $s George Soros and Michael Bloomberg have started pouring into the mix lately worldwide.

The question to ask them is WHY?

FT

[mnguy]

The real question is to ask WHY anyone needs to pour money into the system to get their desired results. I'm with JPS on this one, down with ALL lobbies. The kicker is, though, how do we go about changing the system and getting the special interests out of politics?

The most drastic solution would be revolution in the classic American fashion. Of course, it's the least rational solution but it would definately affect change if successful.

[jackpine savage]

Fred-all lobbys, no matter what their agenda are destroying our political system with the huge amounts of money they toss around. I would like to see the money taken out of the system but that won't happen

[Bill McIntyre]

I think virtually everyone agrees that special interest money poisons our political system. The problem is that trying to reign it in runs up against our right to free speech. If I really like a candidate, why can't I express it by giving him a million bucks?

Its hard to get the right balance.

[westpalmspearo]

i love my terrorist rifle

[Wayward Son]

What a shame. Here is a real hunter brought down by the guys who want guns for toys. My father was an early NRA member and a lifelong hunter, but he sure as well would side with Zumbo if he were still alive.

Yanno, I have to admit that this statement has me curious, Bill. Just what does it take to be a "real hunter"? All this time I though I was one, but according to you, not so.

So here, lemme give you my background & then you can tell me what I need in order to lay claim to it:

I started hunting in the sea with a spear gun in 1972, but due to the restrictive gun control laws in Turkey was unable to take up hunting with firearms until returning to the states. So I started that in 1976.

In these 31 years I've hunted across America, from east to west & back again: upland birds, small game, predators, varmints & big game which to date includes white tailed deer, mule deer, wild turkey, wild hogs, javelina, black bear, mountain lion, pronghorn & elk. Black bear & lions were hunted by going into their territory & using a predator call to make them hunt me, great fun.

My methods have ranged from sitting on a stand to slipping around on the ground to spot & stalk to using dogs to man drives to calling.

I hunt with bow & arrow, handguns, rifles & shot guns and black powder muzzle loading rifles. Archery tackle has included both modern compound bows & more traditional recurves (what I currently use).

Shotguns I've used for hunting include break action single barrel, break action double barrel, pump action, bolt action & semi-auto guns.

Handguns used for hunting include revolvers & semi-autos.

While my personal preference for rifles runs to bolt & lever actions, I have also hunted with single shots & semi-auto rifles as well, including using an SKS to hunt deer & my AR-15 for called predators & varmints.

I hunt something in the woods every spring & fall, and of course hunt in the sea with a spear gun, pole spear, tickle stick & hands year round as much as I can afford to go, mainly on scuba but some free diving as well.

Now, I really am confused. I thought I'd done a lot of hunting. I though that I was in fact a real honest to God American hunter, but now I'm told by you it's not so.

I really would like to make up for this lack & be complete, so please tell me just exactly what it takes.

Zumbo has done at least 2 things I haven't, but I never considered those to be necessary to lay claim to the term "real hunter". He has earned a living writing about hunting & he has been on many, many guided hunts. It's possible that most of his hunting has been guided, I dunno.

Now, I've never earned my living writing about it, nor have I ever been able to go on a guided hunt. I've always had to scout the land & find the game for myself, so maybe that's the missing element? I need to add a guided hunt to my list?

[Bill McIntyre]

Yanno, I have to admit that this statement has me curious, Bill. Just what does it take to be a "real hunter"? All this time I though I was one, but according to you, not so.



I didn't say that YOU were not a real hunter.

But I think many people who so object to Zumbo's words are people who love guns because they love guns, not as a tool to be used to hunt, and their use is restricted to such things as shooting holes in roadside signs or shattering beer bottles standing on stumps.

[RippA]

What is the harm in liking a gun simply for being itself. People like cars boats and planes for the same reason, and don't try to come back with that these things don't kill people or are not dangerous.

[chuam]

And you need to register your car and boat and plane. There are regulations you must follow for your plane to be legal. You must also pass a test to fly a plane and drive a car (you should also need one to drive a boat in my opinion). Why shouldn't there be more regulations to own a gun? It is equally as dangerous.

Don't think I'm anti-gun. I hunt and own guns but I still believe that owning a gun should be a privilege not a right.

[bgbill]

And you need to register your car and boat and plane. There are regulations you must follow for your plane to be legal. You must also pass a test to fly a plane and drive a car (you should also need one to drive a boat in my opinion). Why shouldn't there be more regulations to own a gun? It is equally as dangerous.

Don't think I'm anti-gun. I hunt and own guns but I still believe that owning a gun should be a privilege not a right.

It is called the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment.

Driving is a privilege, owning guns is a right.

[Wayward Son]

Yep, you register you cars & boat. So they can levy taxes against them. Be damned if I'm going to pay an annual tax in order to keep my guns.

Besides, if you *really* want to go there, let's take a look at it. If we treated guns like we do cars we would:

Sell them to anyone who has the cash, period. There is no age restriction to buy a car, just to drive it on public roads. There is no background check to buy a car, so we can drop that, too.

Have the state provide & administer a standard operating test. Pass it, you get you license & are good to go.

Only register ones that are to be used on public property (you do not have to register & pay taxes on a vehicle that never leaves your property).

Once you paid the taxes & registered one for use on public property, you would be able to take it anywhere in public. Anywhere. All states, no restrictions.

Yanno, I'm liking this a little better. I keep my privacy for all my guns except the ones I wish to carry on my person & it prevents the antis from getting in my face about it.

Just kidding. It'll be a cold day in hell when I register any of my guns.

[bgbill]

Just kidding. It'll be a cold day in hell when I register any of my guns.

Actually the Supreme Court made a ruling saying it was Unconstitutional to make it mandatory to register firearms, it seems it violates criminals rights against self incrimination.

[Wayward Son]

The ruling is not that it's unconstitional. They were quite specific. A *criminal* who is legally banned from possising a gun can not be charged or convicted for failing to register a gun as that act would violate his right against self incrimination.

You & I are under no such restriction. Since we've done nothing wrong & can legally have guns, we aren't incriminating ourselves by registering them.

The reality is that registration laws are useless in regards to criminals & serve as a confiscation list for governments. Anyone thinks I'm exaggerating on that needs to read a little. Not only has that been the case in other countries, right here in the USA registration laws have been used to confiscate guns that had been legal. It has happen in NY & CA, just to name 2 states.

So no, I will not live in a state that requires it & if a federal law is ever passed I will not comply.

[Bill McIntyre]

What is the harm in liking a gun simply for being itself. People like cars boats and planes for the same reason, and don't try to come back with that these things don't kill people or are not dangerous.

OK, but while people do get killed using boats and planes, those things do have other worthwhile functions.

And frankly, I don't like cars and planes simply for being themselves. Their selves are a pain in the ass, and I only put up with them because of their utility.

[bgbill]

OK, but while people do get killed using boats and planes, those things do have other worthwhile functions.

And frankly, I don't like cars and planes simply for being themselves. Their selves are a pain in the ass, and I only put up with them because of their utility.


Bill,

Guns have many worthwhile functions, one of them happens to be shooting a criminal intent on raping or killing someone.

[Wayward Son]

Well, lemme see:

I started shooting guns at the end of 1975. That's a bit over 32 years now.

Considering that as of today, none of my guns have ever been used to shoot anyone, I think it's safe to say that they just might have other worth while uses.

[Bill McIntyre]

Yep, you already said that you hunt.

[RippA]

Bill Mc those were just examples of things that people like for more than their simple utility. There must be something you like for more than the sole purpose of its usefullness. Also as stated earlier owning a firearm is a constitutional right for all, but driving is a privilege. It also seems that most liberals are all about the rights of the people as long as they agree with those rights. I don't know about you but I support the whole Bill of Rights in its entirety. One right we don't have is to pick and choose which rights other people should have due to our liking.

[Wayward Son]

I also shoot targets, used to shoot formal competitions & always carry a defensive sidearm. Then there's the simple pleasure of collecting them. There have been at least 2 occasions that I truly believe I would likely have been dead or seriously injured had I not been armed plus 1/2 dozen of so incidents that were definitely on the edge. However, even to stop an attach & save my life I have not yet had to actually shoot anyone.

[bgbill]

OK, but while people do get killed using boats and planes, those things do have other worthwhile functions.

Bill,

A Speargun is a single purpose tool, it is only good for one thing, killing fish.

A gun has several uses such as defense, hunting, target shooting.

And if you get low on cash, you can either sell it, or show it to the lady at the bank, and get some cash. :D

[Killer&Griller]

Good for Zumbo. Stood up for what he thought and didn't waiver when he was called on it. :eek:

[bgbill]

Good for Zumbo. Stood up for what he thought and didn't waiver when he was called on it. :eek:

:rofl:

[los mentirosos]

God forbid 3 man terrorist fire teams would walk the streets of US someday. If so, you will be glad some of us have the weapons dugout speaks of. :gun: :gun: :gun:

[Wayward Son]

Good for Zumbo. Stood up for what he thought and didn't waiver when he was called on it. :eek:

Really? He sent this letter:

February 28, 2007


Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts and unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.

I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.

I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.

The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.

Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”

I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.

I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.

I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.


Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo

[RippA]

Anyone named Jim Zumbo needs to be bitch slapped.

[100days-a-year]

Now, the easy way to get the pacifists to allow guns would be for Bush to propose some restrictions.We all know how concerned the liberals are about our constitution when he steps on it.An inconsistency of almost Biblical proportions. :rolleyes:

[chuam]

If you read the initial versions of the wording of the 2nd amendment you will see that the 2nd amendment was originally based on the point of needing to have militias:

The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Next was new language:

On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

on August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.



"To keep and bear arms"

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated

A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane

[RippA]

I suppose the third amendment does not apply either since we are not being invaded by the brittish anymore either.

[RippA]

I think the key part of the 2nd amendment in the "right of the people... shall not be infringed" It does not read "shall not be infringed until after we win our independence and an offcial army is in established." If you read the quotes of many of our founding fathers most of them were untrustworthy of any big government and the 2nd Amendment helps the "people" keep some sort of leverage.

[chuam]

I think the key part of the 2nd amendment in the "right of the people... shall not be infringed" It does not read "shall not be infringed until after we win our independence and an offcial army is in established." If you read the quotes of many of our founding fathers most of them were untrustworthy of any big government and the 2nd Amendment helps the "people" keep some sort of leverage.

I always find this argument curious. What leverage do we really have? Without SAM's and anti tank weapons we are helpless if the govt. used the military to attack the populace.

[Wayward Son]

Not true, but it does take a little thinking to realize it.

[RippA]

Point taken but their must be some reason why the first thing a dictator or tyranical gonerment does is disarm the populace.

[chuam]

I look at it this way, the framers had no idea what the future held so they tried to set up the constitution as a living document. Some things should be added and some taken away as necessary. I don't think the 2nd amendment should be taken away but I think it has been misinterpreted.

As much as everyone screams that they are going to take away our guns it will never happen. Should there be limits on what guns you can own? I think there should. I also think there should be registration of them. If you have a gun stolen because of negligence, you should pay a hefty fine. I still think gun ownership should be a privilege and it should not be something that one should enter into lightly.

[RippA]

I can tell you then other than privilege instead right part you should support the NRA because if there is one thing they promote is responsible and safe gun ownership.

[Killer&Griller]

Really? He sent this letter:

February 28, 2007


Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo

What is the purpose of posting this letter in response to my post? He changed his story as I eluded too as soon as he got "called" on the topic. I don't get your "Really?" part.

[Bill McIntyre]

I can tell you then other than privilege instead right part you should support the NRA because if there is one thing they promote is responsible and safe gun ownership.

Like armor piercing ammo and handguns that can get by a metal detector?

[firefyterx]

Bill what do you call a "gun nut?" What do you care if someone likes to go out and shoot just for the joy of shooting. You said you only tolerate cars and boats and the like because they are utile. But some people like to build a fast car or monster truck because they enjoy it. Just because you don't share their enthusiasm doesn't make them a "Nut." As with these vehicles so should it be with firearms, as long as you use them legally how does it hurt you? The problem I have with liberals is that they always try to mind other peoples business. I belong to the NRA. I Hunt. I own several hand guns. I own semi automatic rifles, pistols, and shot guns. I like to shoot targets and prarie dogs for practice. I assure you I am not a "NUT."

[firefyterx]

I can assure you there is no armor piercing ammo that will get passed a metal detector

[firefyterx]

The NRA is responsible for thousands of gun safety classes where hundreds of thousands of kids have been educated to properly handle firearms

[chuam]

As much as I like the NRA for some of the stands they take on gun issues I can't support them for a lot of the other stances they take on gun issues.

[RippA]

Bill if you can find a working gun that can get by a metal detector you let me know. The only gun i know that might come close to that would be some KEL-Tec models but unfortunatly they have metal barrels and bolts. Please inform me of this new alien technology.

[mnguy]

I can assure you there is no armor piercing ammo that will get passed a metal detector

He's saying that handguns that can get through metal detectors and AP rounds are neither responsible nor safe gun ownership. He isn't saying that an AP round will make it through a metal detector. Reading: it's FUNdamental.

Dude if you've got multiple points to say, as asinine as they may be, just put them in one reply. No need to extend the pages farther than they have to go.

[bgbill]

Like armor piercing ammo and handguns that can get by a metal detector?


Bill,

Would you care to elaborate on this?

There is no handgun that can get by a metal detector.

Are you are talking about the Ceramic and Polymer Glock?

[100days-a-year]

The guys in the black helicopters use them.

[Wayward Son]

The 2 old -very old- strawman arguments.

There are no guns on the market that can't be seen with an X-ray. the antis screamed bloody hell that's what a Glock would do when they came out (20 years ago now), but a Glock run through an airport x-ray scanner looks like a Glock.

And the "armor piercing" ammo bullshit. this is the slight of hand they keep using in an effort to ban our hunting ammo. They know full well that personal body armor is designed to stop pistol rounds & almost every rifle round on the market, from the old 22LR solid on up, will in fact penetrate body armor. Not because it was designed to (the 30-30 dates back to the late 1800's, well before modern soft armor was even thought of), but because the armor itself was never designed to stop it.

It's the Goldilocks approach: That gun is too small, that one is too big. This one too cheap, that one too costly. This gun is much too powerful but that one isn't powerful enough, so clearly no one has any real use for it.

None are just right & in the end you have none left.

The Brady campaign is on record, right now with a letter published in the last 2 weeks, calling for a ban on .223, 30-30 & 30-06 guns and ammo for use by private citizens in America. They claim that they are "sniper rifles" that clearly have no use in the hunting fields.

The 30-30 is a sniper rifle with no hunting utility, sure it is. And I'm going to be the next president of the United States.

[FredT]

Wayward,
Some have wholeheartedly "drunk the Cool-Aid" of lies told by Sara Brady and Rebecca Peters's bunch and the other clueless parrots in the media. Don't you dare confuse them by actually offering the facts. It affronts their new "religion."

The fool in question sipped a bit and parroted the lie, and got slammed for it. He learned from his mistake and corrected it even though it has done considerable damage by giving the opposition a free sound bite to exploit, without his permission. We'll be dealing with that directly for a decade or more.

It's the same problem as the fools freediving giving the media a free shot a scuba divers with their "sporting" issues claim, when they have no clue as to the conditions most scuba hunter deal with over here. They do damage that without even understanding what the FRA's fight is all about, and what the oppositions aims are. i.e. stopping ALL sport fishing! It just gives the opposition fodder for their divide and conquor campaigns.

We either fight this battle together or we all loose! The unenlightened don't even recognize the possibility that their might be a war on the horizon, and have no idea that those in the trenches have been bleeding for decades. The quibbling over red herrings and allowing the opposition to define the terms of the debate with lies in the definitions plays into the hands of the unilateral civilian disarmament folks.

For the unenlightened, by definition:

Assault weapon:
A selective fire (full auto/semiauto) weapon firing a reduced power cartridge with a power level somewhere between pistol ammuniiton (9mm) and battle rifle ammunition (8mm Mauser or .30-06) The M-16 fits this description. The AR-15 and all it's clones do not. The NFA of 1934 controlled these weapons before the first was invented during WWII by the Germans for use in the russian campaign.

Assault weapon ans defined by the opposition: Any "ugly" semi-auto rifle they think they can get away with so labeling. There is no "standard" definition in use as it's considered a "term of art".

Armor piercing ammo:
Generally battle rifle ammo with a steel or tungsten penetrator. Some semi-armor piercing ammo is made for the M-16 as an attempt to upgrade the performance of the round at extreme distances. Generally a shoulder fired AP round will provide reduced diameter penetration through about 1/4" of steel armor plate.

Armor piercing ammo definition AS used by the opposition= KTW rounds. These developed by 3 law enforcement officers to allow police to fire effectivly through windshields. This ammos has NEVER been available as a company policy to non-LEOS. A side effect of the teflon coating on the round that allows it to grip glass so it won't ricochet is that it makes it easier to slip by the fibers of an aramid vest. In the entire history of this ammunition manufacture NO LEO has EVER been injured by one of these rounds passing through a vest. This entire PR campaign was based on a bald faced lie, nothing less.

FT

[SpearforBeer]

always find this argument curious. What leverage do we really have? Without SAM's and anti tank weapons we are helpless if the govt. used the military to attack the populace.

I also agree. The second ammendment was meant to keep us on an equal or near equal footing with the government so that if the need ever arise, we could overthrow our them. But with technology now I cant imagine even standing a chance against armor-piercing machine guns and tomahawk missiles no matter how many guns we have.

[RippA]

I love how its NOT okay for the NRA(or its members) to go after someone for saying something outrageous, but when Ann Coulter indirectly calls John Edwards a "fag" she is allowed to be hated and burned at the stake. Freedom of Speech and Association can be a bitch sometimes.

[RippA]

I also agree. The second ammendment was meant to keep us on an equal or near equal footing with the government so that if the need ever arise, we could overthrow our them. But with technology now I cant imagine even standing a chance against armor-piercing machine guns and tomahawk missiles no matter how many guns we have.


Once again if this is so true why do Dictators and Tyranical governments always disarm the poulace during a takeover. Also if small arms are so insignifigant then why are we still in Iraq.

[jackpine savage]

I don't care what gun you own, as long as you don't commit a crime then its not my business. However, IMO if someone commits a crime with a gun then they should do serious time. Owning a gun is a right, violating someone elses rights with it is a crime and you should pay a steep price.

[Bill McIntyre]

I love how its NOT okay for the NRA(or its members) to go after someone for saying something outrageous, but when Ann Coulter indirectly calls John Edwards a "fag" she is allowed to be hated and burned at the stake. Freedom of Speech and Association can be a bitch sometimes.

I'm not sure I followed what you meant.

Why isn't going after the NRA for trashing someone the same as going after Ann Coulter for trashing someone?

[Bill McIntyre]

Also if small arms are so insignifigant then why are we still in Iraq.

I don't understand the question.

[RippA]

For the first one I meant that the NRA is portrayed as being the bad guy in this situation when their members were the ones who were attacked. My point is I understand why certain people are upset with Ann, why should the NRA members not be upset about someone indirectly calling them terrorist

For the War in Iraq I was refering to most of the US's oppositon in Iraq have small arms homemade explosive devices with the exception of RPG's. The of this is if small arms are so insignifidant against planes and tanks why do they want to take them away. I hope this clarifies some things.

[firefyterx]

I agree Jackpine...If someone commits a violent crime using a handgun there should be an automatic life sentance, no ands, ifs, or buts. But if I am using my Firearm legally leave me alone. Its funny the places with the most stringent gun laws have the most gun crime.

[Bill McIntyre]

For the War in Iraq I was refering to most of the US's oppositon in Iraq have small arms homemade explosive devices with the exception of RPG's. The of this is if small arms are so insignifidant against planes and tanks why do they want to take them away. I hope this clarifies some things.

I think we would love to be facing nothing but small arms in Iraq. The IEDs seem to be what are kicking our ass, and now they seem to be shooting machine guns of some sort at our helicopters.

This argument is getting rather tortured, but I suppose that if we bring it back to the US, leaving us with our small arms would not be that much of a problem for a government that wanted to oppress us, but they better make sure we don't have access to 50 cals and dud 500 pound bombs and similar things that could be turned into IEDs. Is there a sporting use for 50 cals and 500 pound bombs?

I happen to think that there should be limits on the kinds of weapons we can own, but I guess I'm making the NRA's case that there should be no limits. If we are so paranoid that we think we are going to need individual weapons to defend ourselves against our government, then the sky is the limit. The government might nuke us, so we should be able to possess nukes, right?

[Wayward Son]

500 lb bombs are already pretty well handled, for the most part you can't own them. Though as McVeigh showed, no law banning making the things will stop someone who wants to & can get the raw materials, & it's going to be about impossible to prevent people from buying something that can be used to make an explosive.

Yes, there are uses for 50 cal rifles. there's a club of people devoted to the things, they like to hold formal competitions with them. Some people actually use the damn things to hunt, though it's more than I want to deal with. They cost so much to buy & shoot, guys like me can't afford them any way. They're pretty much limited to people who have enough money to be willing to spend it on them.

[Bill McIntyre]

500 lb bombs are already pretty well handled, for the most part you can't own them. Though as McVeigh showed, no law banning making the things will stop someone who wants to & can get the raw materials, & it's going to be about impossible to prevent people from buying something that can be used to make an explosive.


So I'm curious- would you admit that its OK that we can't legally own 500 pound bombs? Sure, we can't alway stop someone from using something, but it would be nice if we when we happened to make a traffic stop and noticed that a guy had a 500 pound bomb in the back seat, we could arrest him before he got to the target.

Or is that another unacceptable limit on the right to bear arms? Sometimes I get the impression that the NRA accepts no limits at all. "If we let them take our nukes, they will take our 22 cal pistols next."

[bgbill]

I think we would love to be facing nothing but small arms in Iraq. The IEDs seem to be what are kicking our ass, and now they seem to be shooting machine guns of some sort at our helicopters.

This argument is getting rather tortured, but I suppose that if we bring it back to the US, leaving us with our small arms would not be that much of a problem for a government that wanted to oppress us, but they better make sure we don't have access to 50 cals and dud 500 pound bombs and similar things that could be turned into IEDs. Is there a sporting use for 50 cals and 500 pound bombs?
I happen to think that there should be limits on the kinds of weapons we can own, but I guess I'm making the NRA's case that there should be no limits. If we are so paranoid that we think we are going to need individual weapons to defend ourselves against our government, then the sky is the limit. The government might nuke us, so we should be able to possess nukes, right?

Bill,

Please show me in the Bill of Rights where a gun has to have a sporting use.

Can you show me any crimes that were committed with a legally owned 50 caliber rifle or a legally owned 500 lb bomb?

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill,

Can you show me any crimes that were committed with a legally owned 50 caliber rifle or a legally owned 500 lb bomb?

I really don't track that what weapons were used for crimes, but I don't think there is such a thing as a legally owned 500 pound bomb. Do you think they should be legal? And what about those nukes? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say we can't have them.

[bgbill]

I really don't track that what weapons were used for crimes, but I don't think there is such a thing as a legally owned 500 pound bomb. Do you think they should be legal? And what about those nukes? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say we can't have them.

If the Second Amendment was interpreted the same way as the others, nuclear weapons and 500 lb bombs would probably be legal.

Since you want to ask about rights, do you think a person has the right to do drugs in the privacy of their own home?

Do you think a person should be able to charge money for sex, between two consenting adults?

[Bill McIntyre]

Since you want to ask about rights, do you think a person has the right to do drugs in the privacy of their own home?

Do you think a person should be able to charge money for sex, between two consenting adults?

Yes and yes.

[Wayward Son]

The reality is that the NRA has long ago agreed to limits that a good many of its members do not agree with. This perception that the NRA wants no limits, no laws, etc is another lie and/or mis perception.

The NRA, for example, is the entire reason why we have the NICS instant check system. the Brady bunch wanted a mandatory waiting period, period. the NRA countered that we have the technology to make an instant background check a reality & rather than live with a useless waiting period forever, that would be dropped once NICS was online. the law was written that way & that's what we now have.

I'm personally against all of that nonsense, but it's what we have & why we have it.

My father in law remembers being able to walk into most any hardware store to buy dynamite. Can't do that any more. Does it really matter? For most people, I doubt it. likewise with other explosives, most people don't have them, don't want them, don't care. All of that is utterly irrelevant to the criminal who decides he does want one, they're not really that hard to make & the information is readily available.

And should it come down to a fight here for our freedom, where we really do need the stuff to fight back, the same thing will be true. While we won't have it on hand, people could make what they need without a great deal of difficulty. or simply take what they need from the opposing side & use it.

[Wayward Son]

And I really don't know how the got to morphing the NRA with bombs. The NRA, to my knowledge, has never in its history had anything to do with explosives. It is the National Rifle Association & is, I think, the oldest civil rights org in America today. It was founded by some generals -from both sides- after the civil war ended in order to promote marksmanship. It has always dealt with firearms, firearms safety, training for law enforcement and private citizens, etc.

With firearms. Not explosives. So far as i know there is not an organization that caters to members who wish to enjoy recreational uses of explosives, but if you can find one, please be sure to tell us what they say. It might be interesting.

[RippA]

I think we would love to be facing nothing but small arms in Iraq. The IEDs seem to be what are kicking our ass, and now they seem to be shooting machine guns of some sort at our helicopters.

This argument is getting rather tortured, but I suppose that if we bring it back to the US, leaving us with our small arms would not be that much of a problem for a government that wanted to oppress us, but they better make sure we don't have access to 50 cals and dud 500 pound bombs and similar things that could be turned into IEDs. Is there a sporting use for 50 cals and 500 pound bombs?

I happen to think that there should be limits on the kinds of weapons we can own, but I guess I'm making the NRA's case that there should be no limits. If we are so paranoid that we think we are going to need individual weapons to defend ourselves against our government, then the sky is the limit. The government might nuke us, so we should be able to possess nukes, right?

I've been an NRA member for 21yrs and never Heard of them even come close to support for the right to have heavy explosives. Only small arms which include all handguns(except for a x-ray proof one) rifles, and finally shotguns. No more No less. With very little knowledge anyone anywhere could build an IED if they were inspired bu Allah to do so. Also a machine gun is still a small arm(I think). But in retrospect I do own an Aircraft Carrier and have Nuclear Silo's in my back yard

[jackpine savage]

If someone wants to take a .50 cal and shoot the hell out of old cars and whatever else on their own property why should I care. I have to say its not how I would consider spending a Saurday afternoon but they would probably think I am weird for holding my breath whle I hunt fish.

[bgbill]

I've been an NRA member for 21yrs and never Heard of them even come close to support for the right to have heavy explosives. Only small arms which include all handguns(except for a x-ray proof one) rifles, and finally shotguns. No more No less. With very little knowledge anyone anywhere could build an IED if they were inspired bu Allah to do so. Also a machine gun is still a small arm(I think). But in retrospect I do own an Aircraft Carrier and have Nuclear Silo's in my back yard

Have you ever seen a handgun or any gun that is x-ray proof?

I have never seen or heard about one, there is some hype in the media about "Ceramic" Glocks, but they do not exist, at least if they do, they are not available to the public.

[firefyterx]

The thing is you can make what ever you want illegal it won't stop the bad guys from getting it.

[firefyterx]

The thing is you can make what ever you want illegal it won't stop the bad guys from getting it. Drug dealers have access to full auto uzis. McVeigh used deisel fuel and Nitrates (Fertilizer). Someone bent on committing a crime will not stop because it is illegal to own a gun. Gun laws only hurt the good guys.

[Bill McIntyre]

The thing is you can make what ever you want illegal it won't stop the bad guys from getting it.

So it must follow that nothing should be illegal to possess?

[firefyterx]

Nothing used legally

[Bill McIntyre]

Everything is used legally if the law doesn't say its illegal.

[firefyterx]

Your talking in circles. If you hurt no one, threaten no one what is the problem.

[RippA]

BGBILL you have not seen any ceramic glocks because only the bodyguards of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady own them which they recieved from the Soviets in the late 80's which the Soviets recieved from Mars. I think this goes to prove the Far left media will make stuff up to push their political agenda.

[Bill McIntyre]

I think this goes to prove the Far left media will make stuff up to push their political agenda.

Even if its true, it beats the far right administration making stuff up to push its war agenda.

[RippA]

Even if its true, it beats the far right administration making stuff up to push its war agenda.

Bill thats why I'm starting my own country in which we have no agenda, all we do is shoot 50cal armor piercing bullets along with heroin while doin prostitutes three at a time. PM me if you would like to apply to be a citizen. As of right now we have a population of 4.

[FredT]

So it must follow that nothing should be illegal to possess?

HE GOT IT!!

maybe....

Simple posession of ANYTHING should not be illegal. Some uses of individul items may be resticted, provided there is an element of activly harming another law abiding citizen in the restricted use. Use to harm a predator is another matter entirely.

FT

[Bill McIntyre]

Great, I've always wanted a tank. As long as I just sit in it in my driveway and train the gun on the Middle School kids walking by, it will be fine as long as I don't pull the trigger.

I just hope the Orange County Sheriff isn't backward about this shit.

[FredT]

So I'm curious- would you admit that its OK that we can't legally own 500 pound bombs? Sure, we can't alway stop someone from using something, but it would be nice if we when we happened to make a traffic stop and noticed that a guy had a 500 pound bomb in the back seat, we could arrest him before he got to the target.

Or is that another unacceptable limit on the right to bear arms? Sometimes I get the impression that the NRA accepts no limits at all. "If we let them take our nukes, they will take our 22 cal pistols next."

Please note that if you want to own a 500 lb bomb there is nothing in the federal weapons statutes to prevent it. There are however significant licensing hoops and storage requirements covered in both the NFA and various explosives handling regulations written by OSHA and the ATFE that make legal ownership a bit "inconvnient" for city dwellers. I expect personal ownership of a nuke would probably run afoul of a few international treaty requirements too, although there are many people I'd trust with nukes more than I trust most governments, including our own.

I suggest you start by learning the laws and regulations currently in place before you start dumping out barrels of red herrings. As an exercise in this I suggest you go through the exercise to get a Class 3 FFL. It's an intense learning experience in most states, but I expect it'd be right expensive an entertaining in CA as you'd gather a whole new group of friends in 3 piece suits and sunglasses following everywhere. In most cases a Class 3 FFL is harder to get than a top secret security clearance. In fact a friend of mine recieved his top secret clearance in under 2 weeks based on the investigation done on him for his FFL. The security officer on base was astounded as even secret clearances were taking aobut 6 months to come back at that time. All my friend did was write his FFL number across the top of the security application form to point the FBI in that dierction. It was estimated we saved a year or more on the engineering project because he, as a critical player, was able to come up to speed immediately on hire.

FT

[Wayward Son]

Umm, got news for you: you can own a tank.

[Bill McIntyre]

I suggest you start by learning the laws and regulations currently in place before you start dumping out barrels of red herrings. As an exercise in this I suggest you go through the exercise to get a Class 3 FFL.FT

What you refer to ass red herrings are my attempt to find out if there is ANYTHING that you guys would concede that the public shouldn't own because of its potential to do great harm.

I have no idea what a Class 3 FFL is, but I doubt that I need to know.

[Bill McIntyre]

Umm, got news for you: you can own a tank.

With ammunition?

[RippA]

you can own a F-14 also without the sophisticated radar and guidence systems. I imagine no armorment either.

[FredT]

Great, I've always wanted a tank. As long as I just sit in it in my driveway and train the gun on the Middle School kids walking by, it will be fine as long as I don't pull the trigger.

I just hope the Orange County Sheriff isn't backward about this shit.

There is no reason you can't by a tank in Federal law. The first thing youd need to do is find one that was legally registered and transferable where the owner is willing to make a sale. Then you get to spend 6 months running around collecting the info the ATF wants with the license applications (each transferred item takes it's own and serial number are required up front) and pay the applicable taxes to get the possession stamps. The last time I checked that would be a $200 transfer tax on the main armament+ $200 on each round you have for it. Then there is another $200 on each secondary gun, and possibly a similar tax on each round you have for the turret gun if it's over .50 caliber. I expect there are state sales taxes and the normal vehicle registration hassles to go through too as well as a probable endorsement to your driver's license.

There is also the minor inconvenience of being required to sign away most of your civil rights and provide "carte blanch" to the ATF and FBI to search your residence and place of business in any manner they chose at least once a year without a warrant. There is also the minor inconvenience of having to have written permission from the Secretary of the Treasury (his original signature!)before you can take it across a state line for artillary or machine gun competition. BTW don't forget to keep your paperwork straight as you must provide either the licensed item and 2 tax stamps for each item at your yearly "inspection" or you get to loose all your firearms and spend 10 or more years in Club Fed for bobbling the paper work. I expect finding the serial numbered shell fragments from an expended round to proove you'd actually fired itwould be bit challenging. I haven't had to deal with that issue as I can't afford to spend a couple thousand $ per shot for plinking and they haven't opend up a legal hunting season on State Farm Insurance executives (the ony vermin on which I'd consider spending that amount of $ per shot).

As I understand it the rules in the land of the fruits and nuts are a lot farther from sanity.
I expect they even have some sort of "brandishing" rule out there too to hassle you if you parked the thing facing the middle school.

FT

[jackpine savage]

This is beginning to border on the ridiculous, there is a stark difference between owning a gun and owning a tank or a shoulder fired missile. I am glad certain weapons are illegal to own as much as I am glad people can own a firearm.

[FredT]

What you refer to ass red herrings are my attempt to find out if there is ANYTHING that you guys would concede that the public shouldn't own because of its potential to do great harm.

I have no idea what a Class 3 FFL is, but I doubt that I need to know.

Sure. A computer. Some folks are just too gullible and will write anything, especially if they work for a newspaper or network news agency. Actually your red herrings simply prove a lack of clue about the subject you are discussing. If you don't know what a class 3 FFL is you simply don't have enough knowledge of the existing law to credibly comment on it.

FT

[RippA]

Bill lets go in the opposite direction. How do feel about Box Cutters apparently they are the prefered weapon of terrorist in America? Should we ban them or are they allowed because of their ultility?

[FredT]

This is beginning to border on the ridiculous, there is a stark difference between owning a gun and owning a tank or a shoulder fired missile. I am glad certain weapons are illegal to own as much as I am glad people can own a firearm.

Jack,
Be aware that going strictly by the firearm laws currently on the books in your state I would risk a firearm related felony simply by driving my truck through it, without a gun!

General ignorance of the existing law is what lets the "feature creep" in restricting civil rights happen no matter what side of the fence you are on. The more the people know, the less interferance they'll put up with.

Having had to learn the firearm and self defense laws of the several states when I signed on an FFL while working on a federal reservation there are several states I WILL NOT drive to. Most of those are on my "don't even visit" list. DC, CA, MA, NY, NJ and MD top the list.


FT

[Wayward Son]

Fred & I have the same list.

[jackpine savage]

Jack,
Be aware that going strictly by the firearm laws currently on the books in your state I would risk a firearm related felony simply by driving my truck through it, without a gun!

General ignorance of the existing law is what lets the "feature creep" in restricting civil rights happen no matter what side of the fence you are on. The more the people know, the less interferance they'll put up with.

Having had to learn the firearm and self defense laws of the several states when I signed on an FFL while working on a federal reservation there are several states I WILL NOT drive to. Most of those are on my "don't even visit" list. DC, CA, MA, NY, NJ and MD top the list.


FT
I don't understand, how would you be breaking the law if you were to drive through MA, without a gun no less?

[Bill McIntyre]

Sure. A computer. Some folks are just too gullible and will write anything, especially if they work for a newspaper or network news agency. Actually your red herrings simply prove a lack of clue about the subject you are discussing. If you don't know what a class 3 FFL is you simply don't have enough knowledge of the existing law to credibly comment on it.

FT

Now now Fred, you're being cute, evasive and trying to pull special knowledge on me, but its really simple. Is there or is there not anything that the public shouldn't own because the danger of misuse is too great a risk?

You neatly evaded nukes by referring to treaties, but that doesn't say what you personally feel about them. After all, there are gun laws in this country that you disagree with and you are not shy about saying so, so why not say how you feel about nukes? Is it OK for everyone who can afford one to own one just for the sake of principle? What if just one person missuses his nuke?

Or how about nerve gas? No harm in owning nerve gas as long as I don't missuse it.

I'd frankly be relieved if you would admit that some things just can't be owned safely, but I'm afraid you will stand on principle and confirm the worst stereotypes about gun nuts.

[Wayward Son]

Bill, there are already over 20,000 gun laws in this country. Odds are whatever you think you want is already covered, short of an outright ban. And that has, in fact, been done in some places.

Right now, anything you might think about doing with a gun that's wrong is already illegal. So just exactly what is it you want?

[Bill McIntyre]

So just exactly what is it you want?

I want to believe that you actually think there should be some limits of some kind. Listing laws is beside the point. I'm hoping that you actually think that for the good of society, and being realistic about the chances of someone being irresponsible, that there are some risks that we just shouldn't take.

I don't know if you guys are just following the party line and playing games with me, but it really frightens me to think that you might want to do away with all limits on everything imaginable.

[Wayward Son]

Yes, I think there should be limits. I think the govt should live within the stated bounds of the 2nd amendment & keep it's grubby mitts off of my rights. I'd far prefer to see people who actually do wrong things be punished appropriately for their crimes, rather than fart around meddling with the lives of better than 200 million law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

I'd like to see people who commit violent crimes, of any sort but particularly using a gun, not be able to make deals with the prosecutor that gets the gun charges dropped. I want to see them removed from society. Not for a little while, but for good. Life in prison or kill them, either way is fine by me.

What I utterly abhor are limits that require me to be a defenseless victim while the criminal arms himself to commit his evil with impunity. Limits that force me, regardless of my wishes, ability or judgement, to place my safety in the hands of others who I likely do not even know, despite their demonstrably lousy record of protecting people. It's not their fault, it's the nature of things. They can't be everywhere & most likely will NOT be there at the moment your life is on the line.

I don't have any problem with any person who chooses to accept those risks for themselves. I have a great problem with people making those decisions for me.

[jackpine savage]

I don't know while I am supportive of the right to own a gun I, nor anyone I know have been the victim of a violent crime or a non-violent crime using a gun(i.e. robbery) and most of these people live in Northeastern urban settings. I personally think the paranoia people have of crime is related to the amount of news they watch on the television.

[Wayward Son]

Jack, do you keep up your insurance? Life, health, car, homeowners? Do you make sure to keep a good spare tire & functional jack in your vehicles? Why, aren't you just being paranoid?

This is no different. I may go the rest of my life & never again need a gun. I'll be perfectly fine with that. But the reality is that I have needed one in the past & there is no way to know whether I will or not. What I do know, absolute fact, no possible doubt in my mind, is that if you find yourself in a situation where you truly need a gun, you need it real bad & right goddamned now. 10 miles away in my gun safe is no good & 100 yards away locked in my truck is no better.

[Got Ya]

Bill,

Guns have many worthwhile functions, one of them happens to be shooting a criminal intent on raping or killing someone.


You forgot the main purpose for guns. It is the teeth to the consitution. If the 2nd ammendment can be changes so can the 1st.

[Bill McIntyre]

Yes, I think there should be limits. I think the govt should live within the stated bounds of the 2nd amendment & keep it's grubby mitts off of my rights. I'd far prefer to see people who actually do wrong things be punished appropriately for their crimes, rather than fart around meddling with the lives of better than 200 million law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. etc, etc, etc, etc.



But you still won't answer the question will you? You can't bring yourself to say whether there are any permissible limits on what weapons are beyond the pale.

You say that you only want to punish people who have abused their rights and use a weapon. So we should let people own nukes and just punish them after they have obliterated a city. We should let people own nerve gas and just punish them after they have released it.

You are a smart guy, and its sad to see you so wedded to a principle that you admit to no exceptions. You think think that the world is so dangerous that you have to carry a concealed weapon, but then don't admit that some of those same people who cause you to carry shouldn't be trusted with something that could kill thousands of people.

Please spare me the canned lecture. Would you say whether you favor allowing people to own nukes and nerve gas? Its a simple question.

Its really OK to admit to compromises. Its what distinguishes fanatics from reasonable men.

I realize that the party line is that if they can take you nukes, they can take your pistol, but isn't that a bit extreme?

They tell you how fast you can drive your car, but they don't take your car.

[Got Ya]

WOW Bill, look what you started. LOL. It's like a rolling snow ball. Did you think that it would roll over so many toes? It got about 6 of my toes then I relized that it was soft snow.

[RippA]

Bill the fact is it does not matter whether I think there should be limits on small arms, those limits are there and not going anywhere, the only thing they have no limits on is trying to take my rights away. I believe 20,000+ gun laws prove this. Did you know they have federal laws stating that if a firearm is used in the commision of a crime there is supposed to be a mandatory 5yr sentence(I am all for this). The only problem is most people(at least in new orleans) get to plea bargin out of this. I truly do not believe they want make gun laws for the good of the people/country. Do think they made seatbelt or smoking laws for the good of the people, no, the insurance lobbiest just put enough money. Do you think Arny or Mrs. Clinton or G.W. truly care about you, all they care about is your vote which enables them to keep the power they have grown used to.

[RippA]

But you still won't answer the question will you? You can't bring yourself to say whether there are any permissible limits on what weapons are beyond the pale.

Please spare me the canned lecture. Would you say whether you favor allowing people to own nukes and nerve gas? Its a simple question.


Okay Bill lets be realistic to compare nukes and nerve agents to an m-16 is like comparing apples and a big block chevy. I will be reasonable if you will.

[Bill McIntyre]

Its pretty hard to answer all of that last post since it covered so much ground, but I'll try.

Whether or not there are limits on small arms, my question that no one will answer is whether there is any limit at all to the right to bear arms. I own small arms, but I don't own "large arms" and don't think that I should be permitted to own them. But some people think that the right to bear arms is all-encompassing. I consider those people to be about as rational as those who promise 72 virgins to Muslim martyrs.

Whether they are right or not, the legislators who pass gun control laws really believe that they will help. After all, they have to have balls of brass to buck the NRA, so its not exactly the easy way out.

I can't possibly give you the answer on the motivation of legislators who vote for seat belt laws, but I'm just glad they do. Even if a person is so dumb as to not see the danger of having his child unbelted, I want to protect that child insofar as the law can.

I don't know which candidates really care for me, but its almost irrelevant. As long as I express my opinion and a majority agrees with me, then I get what I want. They call that democracy.

I regret that democracy failed in letting Bush be appointed to the Presidency and in letting him start his war so that he could claim to a "a war President" but I can o

[Bill McIntyre]

Okay Bill lets be realistic to compare nukes and nerve agents to an m-16 is like comparing apples and a big block chevy. I will be reasonable if you will.

You're right. There is absolutely no comparison.

So why is it so hard to admit that there it should be possible to limit ownership of nukes and nerve agents?

I feel like I'm talking into a tunnel with no end. I have limited goals here, but I stated them in earlier posts. All I am hoping for is an admission that guys that I "know" on this board are not so wedded to a principle that says no one can set limits on them that they are unwilling to admit to the possibility.

That sort of shit really does play to the worst fears of the gun control advocates.

[RippA]

My point of view is that I believe we should be able to own any Handgun, rifle or shotgun(including and type ammunition) I see fit as long as I pass a background check fromthe FBI. That is my belief, plane and simple. I agree guns have no place in a school on an airplane(except cargo) in a baroom or courthouse or any private business or residence that does not want them there. Ihope this is somewhat of a middle ground.

[RippA]

I don't know which candidates really care for me, but its almost irrelevant. As long as I express my opinion and a majority agrees with me, then I get what I want. They call that democracy.

Actually that is called a Republic.

[mnguy]

Actually that is called a Republic.
Actually, that was a Democracy.

A Republic would be where one expresses their opinion and a majority agrees so they elect a person to represent them to the world at large who they hope will do what they want. Actually, that would be a Democratic Republic, the system that we have now.

A true Republic would be of the Roman fashion, since they invented it. It would be a bunch of guys making decisions for the areas that they represented by whatever means that they came to represent it(seniority, wealth, power, etc) In fact, A "Senator" means an old man and a Senate is a gathering of old men.

[aaron proffitt]

I always find this argument curious. What leverage do we really have? Without SAM's and anti tank weapons we are helpless if the govt. used the military to attack the populace.


I believe you'll find that our military would strongly disagree with you.How many SAM's and anti-armor are being used by the insurgency ?

[aaron proffitt]

I don't know while I am supportive of the right to own a gun I, nor anyone I know have been the victim of a violent crime or a non-violent crime using a gun(i.e. robbery) and most of these people live in Northeastern urban settings. I personally think the paranoia people have of crime is related to the amount of news they watch on the television.


Jack,
According to the last compilation of stats by the Dept. of Justice,we have a 5 in 6 chance of being the victim of violent crime.Now stats are what they are,I know, they can be somewhat misleading or intrepreted however.But still,even a 1/3 chance is a gamble I wouldn't take with my family and I .
Also,in the aftermath of 'Rita and Katrina; their was a major study done in the breakdown of society in the aftermath.They used these examples as well as the Asian Tsunami,major earthquakes, and other cataclysmic events.What the researchers found was that a civic govt. has approx 36-40 hours to restore order and bring some semblance of civility before anarchy sets in and martial law has to be declared.Now,you know and I know that 36-40 hours is not long and that civil strife would be a certainty.Again ,look at Katrina(and alot of other hurricanes for that matter).That would be a time when I really wouldn't want to be unarmed.

[Wayward Son]

I don't think that I would categorize nerve gas ore nukes as "small arms", so I suppose the argument then shifts to how you define that term?

Many people I know think the line is drawn at personal weapons. Ie, those that only require one person to transport, deploy & use them. Crew served weapons are on the other side of the line. I have mixed thoughts on this. It's not entirely unreasonable, but back in the dark ages when we seemed to actually respect the constitution a bit more no such limits were placed. So I dunno.

Nerve gas & nukes do not seem to have any legitimate uses for an individual, so it's hard to say we should have ready access to them. You can't readily defend your person or family with them, & they meet every definition of weapon of mass destruction. So no, right off hand I'm coming up short to find a way to regard them as arms under the 2nd amendment.

But I also think you're really grabbing, Bill. Not a ****ing one of us has sat here & said "leave my nukes & nerve gas alone! I have a right to them!", so I really dunno what the goddamned point of insisting on pushing the point is.

Read the federalist papers. The founders were pretty clear on what they meant. They intended for all the implements of the soldier to be privately held by free men. So I tend to come at it from that perspective: What arms are issued or permitted to our armed forces personnel? We don't issue individual nukes, nor nerve gas, etc. We do issue sidearms, assault rifles, knives, body armor, night vision & such. Items that a single man can bear & use.

[Bill McIntyre]

But I also think you're really grabbing, Bill. Not a ****ing one of us has sat here & said "leave my nukes & nerve gas alone! I have a right to them!", so I really dunno what the goddamned point of insisting on pushing the point is.


I was moved to push that point by comments like this.

Simple posession of ANYTHING should not be illegal. Some uses of individul items may be resticted, provided there is an element of activly harming another law abiding citizen in the restricted use.

That sort of attitude is pretty black and white, so I was moved to get clarification and find out if ANYTHING really meant anything.

I'm still concerned that some extremists may really believe that, but your nuanced presentation of your views was comforting to me.

[FredT]

I was moved to push that point by comments like this.



That sort of attitude is pretty black and white, so I was moved to get clarification and find out if ANYTHING really meant anything.


I DO mean anything, & that's not limited to weapons. Any "possession" law places the burden of proof on the accused, thus violating the presumption of innocence in law.

Remember please that hurting yourself is simply stupid, but should not be illegal. Hurting OTHERS is what should be illegal.

[FredT]

I don't understand, how would you be breaking the law if you were to drive through MA, without a gun no less?

Check the rules for possession of ammunition and components. I have has so much ammo spilled in my truck by the boy scouts I doubt I could ever find it all, but I'm sure a trained police dog could. In DC the "ammunition" doesn't have to be live...

[Bill McIntyre]

I DO mean anything, & that's not limited to weapons. Any "possession" law places the burden of proof on the accused, thus violating the presumption of innocence in law.

Remember please that hurting yourself is simply stupid, but should not be illegal. Hurting OTHERS is what should be illegal.

I was afraid of that.

I guess its a great principle, but it means that even if we knew someone had a nuke or nerve gas, we could only tail him until he released it. Then if we were still alive, we could arrest him.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to see millions die for your principle. Thank God that the government agrees with me, at least so far.

We live in a society, and for it to work, we have to subjugate some of our precious individual rights for the greater good.

[RippA]

[QUOTE=mnguy]Actually, that was a Democracy. QUOTE]


What about, "the REPUBLIC for which it stands."?

or was that just in there because it sounded better than Democracy.

[Bill McIntyre]

Google "republic vs democracy" and you will get more hits than you want to read. Some of them say democracy is akin to communism, and others say that one of the main features of a republic is that God is sovereign.

To symplify, a true direct democracy means that every citizen directly votes on each issue. In a republic, voters elect representatives who vote on issues. When Ben Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention he was asked what he had created, and he replied "A Republic if you can keep it."

Since I'm the one that started the argument by using "democracy" I'll back pedal and say that a better choice of words would have been that we are a "democratic republic."

[RippA]

I have not read the constitution in a few years but if I recall correctly the word democarcy is not used once. But it is not that big of deal I still knew what you trying to get across. I just wanted to win an argument for once.

[chuam]

I believe you'll find that our military would strongly disagree with you.How many SAM's and anti-armor are being used by the insurgency ?

They are starting to see shoulder launched SAMs enter the arena. They have RPG's which have the capability to be anti armor.

They also have mortars, grenades and anti tank and anti personel mines.

Are you watching the same war?

[jackpine savage]

I cant remember the exact number but about 8 choppers were shot down last month

[Bill McIntyre]

I just wanted to win an argument for once.

Naw, we can't have that. :D

[firefyterx]

I really don't consider nukes or nerve gas firearms and you trying to stretch this to that length only goes to show what liberals will go to any length to outlaw guns. Also, owning either of these would probably be fatal to the owner, at least if he kept them nearby. Weapons grade uranium would put out enough radiation to kill you in a short while depending on time, distance and shielding. I am also sure that the storage of sarin, risen or some other nerve agent would sooner or later be fatal. It would only take one small screw-up.

[Bill McIntyre]

I really don't consider nukes or nerve gas firearms and you trying to stretch this to that length only goes to show what liberals will go to any length to outlaw guns.

Did you actually read the posts?

What using those examples was about was to find out if there was ANYTHING that was just too dangerous to allow the public to possess.

And FredT clearly answered that there should be no limits as far as he is concerned. Nukes and nerve gas are fine with him.

I am also sure that the storage of sarin, risen or some other nerve agent would sooner or later be fatal. It would only take one small screw-up.

Yep, and fatal to a lot more people than the guy who was permitted to possess it.

[jackpine savage]

It is my opinion that the states are the ones who determine a lot of the gun laws that seem to annoy the pro-NRA crowd. My home state of MA is often pointed at as one of those which has restrictive gun laws as opposed to many southern and mid-western states. Perhaps it is the choice of the people who live in these states, we have a pretty healthy hunting industry here. Within 15 miles of my home you can hunt deer, pheasant and quail and the only hassle seems to be the duration of the season. It seems to me that here the voters have chosen gun control and hunting and most, though not all, of the hunters I know here accept that. If you choose to do something different in Louisiana or South Dakota that is great, that is the way a democracy is supposed to work.

[bgbill]

What using those examples was about was to find out if there was ANYTHING that was just too dangerous to allow the public to possess.

Bill,

Based on the above statement, why doesn't the government outlaw smoking?

Smoking is not a Right, like the Right to Bear Arms, and far more people die from smoking than by guns.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill,

Based on the above statement, why doesn't the government outlaw smoking?



Its pretty simple. Smoking doesn't pose a danger to others like a nuke does. I'm willing to let people kill themselves as long as they don't take others with them.

Sure, second hand smoke kills others, but that's why we see all these laws prohibiting smoking in public places, and I'm for them.

I think I've read that some jurisdictions have laws prohibiting smoking in cars with kids, and maybe even in homes with kids. That seems tough, but killing kids is tough too. They can go outside the house or wait until they get the kid out of the car, and then they can kill themselves.

[firefyterx]

Im betting that more people have died from cigarettes than nukes

[Bill McIntyre]

Im betting that more people have died from cigarettes than nukes

Absolutely.

So your point is?

[mulefeathers]

Absolutely.

So your point is?

If we are going to start banning items because they have the potential to kill ( nukes, 50 cal, ) we not take cigs off the market completely?

[FredT]

Bill,

Without even seeing your place I'd be willing to bet YOU either have nerve agents in your house, or the components necessary to manufacture one. Granted the agents you are most likely to have pre-prepared is desigend for an arthropod's nervous system, not a mammalian one, but you didn't specify.

well over 90% of the houses in the US could be busted for having "bomb making materials" under current law if the normal range of cleaning and cooking supplies are present. By making the rule a "possession" rule there is no need for the feds to provide proof of intent to cause damage to others. It simply legalizes the control mechanism. Please be aware that if a LEO "searches" your house with a bulldozer with the a warrant based on falsified testimony the LEOs bear no criminal or civil liability AT ALL!!! This is thanks to slick Willie's "crime bill".

Find out what the law actually IS, then bitch.

FT

[Bill McIntyre]

If we are going to start banning items because they have the potential to kill ( nukes, 50 cal, ) we not take cigs off the market completely?

See post #146.

[firefyterx]

If you have bug spray you have nerve agents. If you have fertilizer and diesel fuel you have the makings of a bomb. Banning items are not going to stop the bad guys from doing bad things. You can always get things that are illegal, drugs, guns, explosives, etc. The thing is the laws don't do what they are intended to do because the people they are aimed at disregard them and the law abiding citizen wouldn't use them improperly anyway. You can argue that it will stop the impulse killer but I would argue they would simply grab the next easiest weapon of choice, knife, bat, car, speargun etc. You can't legislate morality....bad people will do bad things and its tuff to stop them.

[Wayward Son]

Circuit court in DC has just found the gun ban there to be unconstitutional as it violates our individual 2nd amendment rights.

http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

[mjacobs]

I would have no problem with banning weapons of mass destruction like nukes and nerve gas. Really. That seems to be where Bill is heading with this thread.

Now watch the definition of WMDs get twisted and compromised to include all sorts of things not intended. Think the law of unintended consequences.

Mark

[Bill McIntyre]

I would have no problem with banning weapons of mass destruction like nukes and nerve gas. Really. That seems to be where Bill is heading with this thread.


Thank you. I'm glad someone got it.

Actually, I guess I was more devious than that. I only mentioned things like nukes and nerve gas to see if true believers would admit to any limits on ownership of weapons. I would think that would be a slam dunk, but unfortunately there are a few people who confirm the worst fears of the anti-gun lobby. Once they can find someone who says that nukes and nerve gas should not be off limits, then they can point their fingers and say that this proves that the anti-control lobby is dominated by fanatics and there is no reasoning with them.

So I guess I'll walk downtown and see if I can wipe out the city of San Clemente with a pack of cigarettes and the insecticides in my kitchen cupboard.

[mulefeathers]

I would not have a problem banning them as well since they ( in my opinion ) are not arms and are NOT protected by the constitution. Nerve gas and nukes are weapons but not arms to be controlled by the public. But now that I think about it I am not so sure I want to government to control them either. However I think it is my right to own as many guns as I want and can afford.

Cigarettes are just plain bad for you and are a draw on the health system. While it is someone's free right to kill themselves by smoking, medicare should not have pay for their lung cancer.

[Bill McIntyre]

Cigarettes are just plain bad for you and are a draw on the health system. While it is someone's free right to kill themselves by smoking, medicare should not have pay for their lung cancer.

I tend to agree. I guess there would be problems in application though, as some people who have never smoked get lung cancer, some people get lung cancer probably because they live near a coal fired power plant, etc.

So if a guy smoked for a year and then quit, and also lived 10 miles from a coal fired power plant for 3 years, how do we prove the source of his cancer and decide whether he rates Medicare?

I suppose banning tobacco completely would be the only way around those problems, but I don't see it happening, and I'm not sure I want it to because then they might come after my alcohol.

And of course if we denied Medicare to lung cancer patients who smoked, the bastards might try to deny me a liver transplant because I drink beer and wine.

[firefyterx]

Truely I don't think any of us thinks it a good idea to have nukes or nerve agents around and truely that got away from the original post.

[firefyterx]

Bill I am a Firefighter and because of that I am covered under the heart lung bill meant to help firefighters who have heart or lung problems due to firefighting. When I started over 25 yrs ago my recruit class was the first who had to sign a statement that we would not smoke or chew tobacco. They have told us that if we smoke we my not be covered under this bill.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill I am a Firefighter and because of that I am covered under the heart lung bill meant to help firefighters who have heart or lung problems due to firefighting. When I started over 25 yrs ago my recruit class was the first who had to sign a statement that we would not smoke or chew tobacco. They have told us that if we smoke we my not be covered under this bill.

Very interesting. I had no idea.

Edit: now that I think about it, I believe I've seen something about other employers making non-smoking a condition of employment, and being upheld by the courts. Does anyone know if that's true?

[bgbill]

I believe I've seen something about other employers making non-smoking a condition of employment, and being upheld by the courts. Does anyone know if that's true?

Yes it is True, several years ago USG (they make building products) said that any of the employees that worked for them were not allowed to smoke, even when they weren't working, uSG's position was that since they paid for the health insurance and smokers increased it's cost to provide the insurance that they could stop people from smoking, a lot of people bitched about it, some sued, yet I believe it is still against USG's Company Policy to smoke.

Some people think it is their right to smoke, but it is also USG's right to fire people.

There are also several other companies that forbid it's employees to smoke.

Smoking at the jobsite has become such a problem with my subcontractors, that I will no longer allow them to smoke on the property.

[jackpine savage]

Bret-Why is it the insulation guys are always the ones not wearing masks and smoking on top of that.

[bgbill]

Bret-Why is it the insulation guys are always the ones not wearing masks and smoking on top of that.

Stupidity? :confused:

I am amazed at how much productivity is lost by smokers on construction sites.

I have guys show up, smoking a cigarette and then less than an hour later they want to take their smoke break.

I will leave the job to pick up materials or run an errand and when I come back, I can tell they were smoking in the building, I guess they think I won't notice the smell or the cigarette butts on the ground.

I am serious about prohibiting subs from smoking, i am adding a new clause to the subcontractor agreement, and it will forbid all smoking on the property, even in their cars, and if they are caught smoking, the sub will be back charged for the violation, I figure $50 per occurrence should do it.

[jackpine savage]

I work with two other guys and at times we have two helpers and none of us smoke, probably the only crew in town that is smoke free

[Wayward Son]

I used to smoke. Quitting was pretty hard, but it was also prolly one of the best things I ever did. Wish my stepson would quit, but I guess he hasn't got to that point yet.