|
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
jps wrote:
Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Posted by SusanG at Kos. -- If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
"jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
"Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? -- If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Harry wrote:
Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. Well said. Unfortunately I am a gun nut. -- If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
"Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. I believe while you were away, flajim revealed himself (by accident) as one of the ID spoofers. He was caught, then he went into denial. Apparently at the same time, his wife left him for...a cucumber. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:55:20 -0500, Harry
wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. I believe while you were away, flajim revealed himself (by accident) as one of the ID spoofers. He was caught, then he went into denial. Apparently at the same time, his wife left him for...a cucumber. I heard it was the fruits and vegetable manager at the local supermarket. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
"Harry" wrote in message m... Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. I believe while you were away, flajim revealed himself (by accident) as one of the ID spoofers. He was caught, then he went into denial. Apparently at the same time, his wife left him for...a cucumber. There was no doubt that he was one of the cheap imitations. The other one (ones) could be Looneytunes, Jackoff, Ditzy Dan....or even Waylon Smithers. Do you think The Freak is still fooled by them? |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message m... Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. I believe while you were away, flajim revealed himself (by accident) as one of the ID spoofers. He was caught, then he went into denial. Apparently at the same time, his wife left him for...a cucumber. There was no doubt that he was one of the cheap imitations. The other one (ones) could be Looneytunes, Jackoff, Ditzy Dan....or even Waylon Smithers. Do you think The Freak is still fooled by them? Of course...anyone or anything could fool snotty scotty. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote:
Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? And if government can't take guns away from the criminals, why take them away from honest people? Does not mak sense unless you want the herd of people to be passive to abuse. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On 03/01/2010 2:30 PM, Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Who gives a damn if a house thief, rapist, murder maniac, child molester, bar fighter, mafia, drug dealer/pusher, peeping toms, purse snatchers or terrorist dies? In fact, think of how much it saves society in legal and incarseration costs and no repeat offenses? Maybe make it legal to shoot those in the act of a violent and wilful crime! Since most misuses of guns is criminal, and many are criminal killing criminal, I want to know how many innocents get saved by having and not having guns before supporting no guns. If not having guns for honest people is because of drug killing drive by killing of a dope dealer, wrong reason. I will support removing guns from honest people when it can be demonstraighted that guns are removed from those that would harm us, which includes governemnt, mafia and common criminals. Taking guns from honest good people is simply making them sheep for abuse. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 2:30 PM, Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Who gives a damn if a house thief, rapist, murder maniac, child molester, bar fighter, mafia, drug dealer/pusher, peeping toms, purse snatchers or terrorist dies? In fact, think of how much it saves society in legal and incarseration costs and no repeat offenses? Maybe make it legal to shoot those in the act of a violent and wilful crime! Since most misuses of guns is criminal, and many are criminal killing criminal, I want to know how many innocents get saved by having and not having guns before supporting no guns. If not having guns for honest people is because of drug killing drive by killing of a dope dealer, wrong reason. I will support removing guns from honest people when it can be demonstraighted that guns are removed from those that would harm us, which includes governemnt, mafia and common criminals. Taking guns from honest good people is simply making them sheep for abuse. If you have firearms, they probably should be removed from your household. Your first two paragraphs indicate you are crazy. You have no understanding of the rule of law, either. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message m... Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. Dammit Don. Are you trying to disarm me? Yes...you & the entire Dopey Army...... for the sake of American children everywhere. I believe while you were away, flajim revealed himself (by accident) as one of the ID spoofers. He was caught, then he went into denial. Apparently at the same time, his wife left him for...a cucumber. There was no doubt that he was one of the cheap imitations. The other one (ones) could be Looneytunes, Jackoff, Ditzy Dan....or even Waylon Smithers. Do you think The Freak is still fooled by them? It's funny to see how you've been taken in. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Come on give me some applause. Didn't you notice how quickly I figured it out? |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On 03/01/2010 3:46 PM, Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 2:30 PM, Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Who gives a damn if a house thief, rapist, murder maniac, child molester, bar fighter, mafia, drug dealer/pusher, peeping toms, purse snatchers or terrorist dies? In fact, think of how much it saves society in legal and incarseration costs and no repeat offenses? Maybe make it legal to shoot those in the act of a violent and wilful crime! Since most misuses of guns is criminal, and many are criminal killing criminal, I want to know how many innocents get saved by having and not having guns before supporting no guns. If not having guns for honest people is because of drug killing drive by killing of a dope dealer, wrong reason. I will support removing guns from honest people when it can be demonstraighted that guns are removed from those that would harm us, which includes governemnt, mafia and common criminals. Taking guns from honest good people is simply making them sheep for abuse. If you have firearms, they probably should be removed from your household. Your first two paragraphs indicate you are crazy. You have no understanding of the rule of law, either. Tell your wife, if you have one, you will stand by an do nothing while she is raped then killed in her own home because you wouldn't load up and cower behind the couch. I go by a moral code you would not understand. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On 03/01/2010 4:00 PM, Harry wrote:
Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Come on give me some applause. Didn't you notice how quickly I figured it out? You didn't figure anything out, OK, you figured out how to be stupid. With your attitude we should take away planes because they went into the trade towers and killed more than 6000 people. People kill people. Does not mater if it is a gun, auto, airplane, knife, fishing line, bat, chain saw, drowning... Hell, lets take away boats because I might run over you while swiming or boating! |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 3:46 PM, Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 2:30 PM, Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote: Don White wrote: "Harry" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the gun manufacturers. Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent people etc. We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal "instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also apply to long guns, but it doesn't. All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like Froggy. That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws. Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their families. I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in the home were accidental. Does that mean 59% protected life and property? It probably means most of the rest were murders. Who gives a damn if a house thief, rapist, murder maniac, child molester, bar fighter, mafia, drug dealer/pusher, peeping toms, purse snatchers or terrorist dies? In fact, think of how much it saves society in legal and incarseration costs and no repeat offenses? Maybe make it legal to shoot those in the act of a violent and wilful crime! Since most misuses of guns is criminal, and many are criminal killing criminal, I want to know how many innocents get saved by having and not having guns before supporting no guns. If not having guns for honest people is because of drug killing drive by killing of a dope dealer, wrong reason. I will support removing guns from honest people when it can be demonstraighted that guns are removed from those that would harm us, which includes governemnt, mafia and common criminals. Taking guns from honest good people is simply making them sheep for abuse. If you have firearms, they probably should be removed from your household. Your first two paragraphs indicate you are crazy. You have no understanding of the rule of law, either. Tell your wife, if you have one, you will stand by an do nothing while she is raped then killed in her own home because you wouldn't load up and cower behind the couch. I go by a moral code you would not understand. That's pretty funny. I have a fairly wide assortment of firearms in this household, and I am a pretty good shot. I wouldn't hesitate to remove the head from a home invader with my trusty 12-gauge. My wife can load, aim, and shoot firearms reasonably well. I'm sure you are correct in stating you have a moral code I would not understand. I don't live down in the moral gutter as you do. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? Give me your cite.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html Read the article Gene. Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was. I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you want to impune the veracity of his study. Your religious zeal comes into full bloom when you're tested on this subject so perhaps you should take a step back before your knee hits the keyboard again. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? Give me your cite.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html Read the article Gene. Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was. I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you want to impune the veracity of his study. "impune"? There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. And it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good measure. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
Gene wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? Give me your cite.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html Read the article Gene. Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was. No, I'll take that opportunity, now. They are right wing nut cases that will distort any study or wordsmith any statement to get the desired result.... the result paid for. In this case they were paid to be left wing stooges.... I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you want to impune the veracity of his study. I suggest you show me where to see this. Thus far, they have only released the "results" and told us to watch for the study to come out so we can see the results....... huh? Your religious zeal comes into full bloom when you're tested on this subject so perhaps you should take a step back before your knee hits the keyboard again. From your cite: "Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee said in an interview that he and his colleagues are trying to send a clear message to gun owners: "If you have a gun you use for hunting or for self-defense in your home, I don't want your gun."" So.... all I have to tell you is that we have our guns for hunting or self-defense and you'll stop posting this crap???? Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? A. I wouldn't trust anything Luntz produces. He is the reigning whore of pollsters. B. The last pistol I bought cost me more than a grand, which is no more than a moderate price for a non-22LR competition semi-auto. Sure shoots sweet, though. :) |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
|
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:
In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right on through. I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries resulting from bullets fired into the air. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote: On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right on through. I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries resulting from bullets fired into the air. I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill, but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll take my chances with a bullet falling straight down. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
"thunder" wrote in message t... On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right on through. I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries resulting from bullets fired into the air. I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill, but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll take my chances with a bullet falling straight down. But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop, said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit. Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Jan 3, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! *OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. *Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? Give me your cite.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/09/AR200... Read the article Gene. * Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was. I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you want to impune the veracity of his study. "impune"? *There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. *And it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good measure. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Im`pune´ a. 1. Unpunished. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:10:27 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: On Jan 3, 10:55*pm, wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote: Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association. This round, let's listen to Luntz: Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements. Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies. So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby. Posted by SusanG at Kos. Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study that proved their point....! *OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well who did they hire? They hired: http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo.... "Remember, what matters is not what you say. *Its what people hear." Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you can agree with, if you pay them enough..... These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent gun owners.... Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did? Give me your cite.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/09/AR200... Read the article Gene. * Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was. I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you want to impune the veracity of his study. "impune"? *There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. *And it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good measure. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Im`pune´ a. 1. Unpunished. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co. This is the definition of the word that fits the context of the text; Main Entry: im·pugn Pronunciation: \im-'pyün\ Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French empugner, from Latin inpugnare, from in- + pugnare to fight — more at pungent Date: 14th century 1 : to assail by words or arguments : oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity impugned the defendant's character -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
In article ,
says... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right on through. I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries resulting from bullets fired into the air. I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill, but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll take my chances with a bullet falling straight down. But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop, said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit. Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil. I can put a stick through a metal building using nothing but my bare hands. |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:52:17 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right on through. I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries resulting from bullets fired into the air. I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill, but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll take my chances with a bullet falling straight down. But might have still been on a trajectory. Friend who is a retired cop, said he shot at a robber and the bullet went through the side of a metal building about a mile away and luckily did not kill the lady that it hit. Went in the front of her throat lodged against the spine. And that was with maybe a 357 police revolver. I think it was before they went to 9 mil. I can put a stick through a metal building using nothing but my bare hands. Would that be your house or garage? |
Gun owners and NRA on same page?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... Or did I not pay enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or? Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who say they have cases of falling bullets killing people. I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind... A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a distance away. Yeah, really never thought of that... oooops. So basically, it could remain balistic and at speed for the length of the journey, right? Scotty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com