If you don`t vote like a gun owner, You Suck!

[CrabbyDaddy]

This article originally appeared in the August 2000 issue of “The Blue Press”,
the catalog of Dillon Precision Products, Inc. (www.dillonprecision.com)

Editor's Note: While we're certain that the sentiments expressed in this
editorial don't apply to regular Blue Press readers, we're pretty confident that
most of you know gun owners to whom these sentiments DO apply -- if so, please
pass this article on. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those
of the author, although ours are similar.

By Peter CarolineZ

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun
owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last
presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we
are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80
million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something
to that group.

Sure, you drive around in a pickup truck with a gunrack and some hairy-chested
bumper stickers, and you talk big at the gun shop or the Legion Hall. But will
you shell out 35 bucks and join the NRA? Oh, you don't agree with the NRA's
stance on this or that, or the NRA is too soft on something or too unyielding on
something else? Or maybe long ago the NRA didn't send you your free cap or
bullet key ring on time. Well, you know what? That's a dumb cop-out and you're
an *******. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is the only...I repeat ONLY,
effective representation you have in the cesspool of Washington politics. Even
the NRA's worst enemies -- YOUR worst enemies if you have the capacity to think
about it -- agree that it's one of the most powerful lobbying forces on Capitol
Hill. That means no one else fights your battles for you better, and if you
don't understand that simple fact, you're too dumb to exist!

OK, you don't give a damn about the NRA but you still want to keep your guns. So
why, in the name of all that is holy, do you vote for "gun-ban" candidates? Oh,
you don't? So who does? Maybe it's all those other people who were voting while
you were sucking a brewski and watching the game on TV. Or maybe you're a good
union guy, and the union votes Democrat.

Some years ago, Mario Cuomo, a dedicated anti-gunner who happened to be governor
of New York, described gun owners in a most uncomplimentary fashion. But the
most damning thing he said about gun owners is that they don't vote, and
therefore should not be considered as a factor in any election. How about that?
Mario Cuomo is a liberal Democrat and, as such, is wrong about most everything,
but he's absolutely right about you. And I can prove it. If you non-voting gun
owners in New York State did get off your asses and vote like gun owners,
obscenities like Mario Cuomo couldn't even be elected as dog catcher. The same
goes for Charles Schumer; he wasn't bad enough as a congressman from Brooklyn;
you dumb schmucks had to let him become a senator! What's next...Hillary?

Then there's my old home state of Massachusetts. Over one million Massachusetts
gun owners must be really proud to claim Teddy Kennedy as their senator. And
John Kerry, the Kennedy clone, is no better. The entire Massachusetts
congressional delegation, both gay and straight, is anti-gun. And you Bay State
gun owners are the dildoes that put them in office! Because you sat on your fat
asses, you've got Chapter 180 -- aptly named because it turns your gun rights
around 180 degrees -- and you've got an attorney general who wants to be
governor and thinks every handgun is a faulty consumer product. Once again,
Massachusetts gun owners, where were you on Election Day?

Look at every state with asinine, repressive gun laws and a preponderance of
anti-gun politicians -- California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland...to cite
several horrible examples -- and you will find enough gun owners to form an
unbeatable voting bloc, IF they would get their thumbs out of their butts and
vote, for a change. Jeez, what a concept!

We all know the excuses: I'm too busy, my vote doesn't count, they're all crooks
and it doesn't make any difference, I gave $5 to Quail Unlimited so I don't need
to vote, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's the bottom line...your vote does not
count if you don't use it. If you don't vote, then effectively you are on the
same side as Rosie (I'm-not-a-hypocrite) O'Donnell, Sarah Brady, Bill and
Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer and every other low-life bottom
feeder who knows what's best for you. If you don't vote like a gun owner, you
are a butt-boy for the anti-gunners, and you bend over forward to please them.

Think about it. 75-80 million gun owners in this country; only 3.6 million NRA
members, and who knows how many active pro-gun-voting gun owners. You can argue
all you want about your inalienable rights. Rights are like body parts; they
only work if you exercise them. And yours are looking pretty flaccid right now.
If you don't vote in the next election, your enemies will elect a president who
will be able to name three or four new Supreme Court justices. Which means that
by the 2004 election, you will have no guns. And shortly after that, you will
have no vote and no rights. And you know what? If you let that happen, it will
be exactly what you deserve!

[Scott McGuire]

Care to Paraphrase?

[CrabbyDaddy]

What part of it you don`t understand?

[RKOCH]

I am a NRA Life Member. And a proud Republican.

[Scott McGuire]

CrabbyDaddy originally wrote:
What part of it you don't understand?


The part that involved reading 50 lines.

[captaingeorge]

6-year-old garbage smells really bad.

[eastcoastWest]

pround democrat.. gun owner.. occasional hunter (grew up hunting but don't do it really much anymore) and I f'n hate the NRA

but cheers anyway... I know plenty of people who own guns, hunt, and don't agree with the NRA. I think it's pretty foolish to dumb down gun control to those who are "anti guns" and those who are not. It's not that simple...but I don't expect much more from someone who writes something such as what you posted.

[RKOCH]

F#@K Gun Control!!! It only controls the guns of law abiding people. Not criminals!! People commit crime not guns.

[pbramble]

That's a real limited view of gun control RKOCH, I know a fellow who worked for a reputable gunshop who was caught selling guns without doing the proper paperwork/background checks, etc. Making it difficult for felons to buy guns makes sense to me. They busted this guy, and frankly, I'm glad. Who knows who he sold guns to? I'd hate find out someone I know was the victim of a gun related crime at the hands of a criminal who may have been stopped from buying a gun, yet recieved his weapon because some yahoo didn't perform a background check. I bet you'd change your tune too if the same happened to you.

[RKOCH]

I have no problem with a simple backgroud check to buy a wepon to keep felons etc from buying them. If he was doing that then by all means arest him. I am saying no one should tell me how many or what kind of guns I should own. I own several assult rifles some fully automatic, some with silencers and yes I filled out all the paperwork, did my backgroud checks and paid my fed tax to have such. Point is if I am a law abiding citizen I want a UZI or an AK-47 then I should be able to own such as long as I am using it for a legit purpose, collecting, sport shooting , hunting, etc. But I am not going to justify to anyone why I need a gun or guns or the type of guns just to own them. As a law abiding citizen of the United States of America I am given the right to such and I inteend to defend that right. When I went in the Army I took an oath "To defend the United States from all ememies foreign and domestic" I may be a disabled vet now but I still beleive that to the end and anyone who wants to take my guns and my rights is a domestic threat to the well being of the United States of America.

[pbramble]

Understood, I personally don't shoot anything other than shotguns, and have little desire to much more than that, but I don't want them taken away.

[eastcoastWest]

Point is if I am a law abiding citizen I want a UZI or an AK-47 then I should be able to own such as long as I am using it for a legit purpose, collecting, sport shooting , hunting, etc.

do you think bombs and grenades should be legal? I mean as long as I'm just a collector it's cool, right?

I see no reason to need to own a UZI. The "collector" agrument really gets me... I guess cocaine should be legal too... I mean as long as you are just going to "collect" it.

I appreciate your libertarian view on the topic but I just don't agree.

[RKOCH]

Ever deer hunted with an UZI or an AK ??? I have and works well. The point is the right to bear arms applies to all arms . Not some arms or arms for a specific purpose. I guess you think I should not own my .50 BMG Barrett semi auto sniper rifle either? Well I used one in the army and I liked it so I bought one, and yes have killed deer and bear with it @ 1000 meters. Do that with your 30-06. Why not have grenade? People collect stamps cars and other things and cars kill more peole than guns, noone is banning them. If one is responsible enough to own such then by all means let him have it. My son is 11 and can shoot his, notice I said HIS M-4 carbine 5.56 nato better than most people do in basic traning, and he hunts with it.


Were you ever in the military? Well most, especialy us former Special Forces guys have a respect and apprciation of combat arms and like to shoot them and own them. When I go to my reunions @ Bragg we get to brush up on our skills, yes grenades. I choose to defend my family by all means avalible. Come in my house you will be lucky if you are hit by a .45 because I am going to lock and load 30 rds of 7.62x39 mm and flip the switch down to full auto and cut you in half. Try to take my guns and the same will happen.

And I'm no libertarian. I am a proud member of the Republican party and my son and I are both NRA Life Members.

[captaingeorge]

RKOCH originally wrote:
The point is the right to bear arms applies to all arms .
Where did you come up with this?

[RKOCH]

That was what was intended by our founding fathers.

[captaingeorge]

Says who? The NRA?[smile]

[RKOCH]

The consitution of the United States of Amercia.

[captaingeorge]

RKOCH originally wrote:
The consitution of the United States of Amercia.
No, it doesn't.

[RKOCH]

All in how you interpit it.

[captaingeorge]

RKOCH originally wrote:
All in how you interpit it.
On this, we can agree.

[RKOCH]

Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia = A military oragization made up of private citizen that are free go as they choose. Not IE the National guard or reseve where you have an obligation to stay. A miliiatry organization uses and brings their own military weapons and leaves with them , or there would be no point in a militia. This was also meant to be a check and balance that the government did not become more powerful than the people. That if the government did not work as stated people could rebel so the were always free. How can that happen if only the military can have certain guns? It can't.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed = People can arms themselves anyway fit to defend them selves, property and state. NO where does it say what kinds of arms I can own. That was some Democratic party BS that came latter.

[captaingeorge]

RKOCH originally wrote:
NO where does it say what kinds of arms I can own. That was some Democratic party BS that came latter.
Careful, RK. You're deviating from the NRA party line. They can, and do, endorse Dems., including in the last VA election.

[RKOCH]

Real limted endorsement there are a few Dems but not many. It is the Kennedy's , Shumer's , Clintion's and Feinstein's That are the problem and there loyal followers.

[captaingeorge]

This is where the topic degrades from a discussion of the facts into a vitriolic name-calling match. You'll understand if I decide to pull out now.[smile]

[stripermd]

Crow Bait originally wrote:
CrabbyDaddy originally wrote:
What part of it you don't understand?


The part that involved reading 50 lines.


[grin][grin]
I thought that you were smart

[pbramble]

I'm not a member of the NRA, and don't even own a handgun, but in defense of RKOCH's interpretation of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers included that clause because in essence, they had been basically private citizens who started a war with an unjust government. The idea behind it was that if The American Government ever needed to be overthrown, like the British, then private citizens would need to own weapons. That said (and trust me, this is a simple way to think about), all Americans have the right to own guns that are equal to what our military owns so that if we should ever have to protect ourselves from the Govt. or defeat an unjust government, we have the ability. Antis like to argue that the Framers of the Const. did not mean to protect such efficent killing machines such as automatic weapons, but if our government is using automatic weapons, than those are exactly what the Framers intended private citizens to own. The Constituion was designed to be a living document, and grow with the Republic.

That is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I don't see the need, in this day and age, to own the weapons RKOCH enjoys, but I do not disagree with his interpretation. Owning military grade automatic weapons is a Constitutional right, and gun laws restricting that right are essentialy unConstitutional. Maybe the laws are based in common sense, but they are still not what the Framers of the Constitution intended.

My .02, I'm sure someone will disagree with me, but I'm certain I'm correct, so I won't argue about it further than this post.

[captaingeorge]

So, may we assume, using your logic, that this right includes individual ownership of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, land mines, etc? Military has them, why not you and I?

[pbramble]

yeah it does. I don't know about you, but I can't afford them. And I'm not smart enough to cook any of that stuff up in my basement.

[mtracy2u]

I am a Republican ,NRA member ,Concealed weapons Permit holder. I vote accordingly !Great Post !

[capt1sam]

a democrat and nra hater, what a combo! dont expect to much from you either!!!

[RKOCH]

mtracy2u originally wrote:
I am a Republican ,NRA member ,Concealed weapons Permit holder. I vote accordingly !Great Post !


I am too...................So

Q]capt1sam originally wrote:
a democrat and nra hater, what a combo! dont expect to much from you either!!!
[/Q]

2 to 1 you loose.
God bless the USA, republican party and the NRA.

[erikharwell]

I voted republican in the last election, but I am not happy with with most things bush has done. he has not created or passed any new gun laws that affect me. that is about th only good thing he has done. I have been shooting since I was old enought to pull a trigger. I believe in what the NRA is working for, but I am not a member because they are not non profit. I believe if every law obeying citizen owned a gun we would be alot safer. I think we have every legal right to own a machine gun, grenade, 50 cal, suppressor, etc. you can still own the equipment in the above list with a background check that takes 3-9 months and a 200 dollar tax stamp. I believe the 50 can be obtained with a regular background check, and about an 8-10 grand price tag for the barret semi. if you are a hunter or gun owner, and vote for someone who wants to take that right away, you are an idiot, and must not enjoy your sport.

[stripstrike]

i used to belong to the nra but have really become disgusted with their scare tactics. honestly, how many of your guns have been taken? has any legislation passedby any state you live in affected your gun ownership? hell, even the federal assault weapons ban has been lifted. there's some people that are running the nra that shouldn't ever be allowed to touch a firearm cuz they're frikkin nuts. i am ex-military also, and enjoy shooting "surplus" weapons and the like, but as a society we do have a problem with gun violence in urban areas that has to be addressed that the nra does not want to admit. they suck, love ted nugents music, chuck hestons movies, but can't stand their ideology

[hntrsr2506]

okay guys please square this arguement with the USA prohibiting sovereign countries from owing certain weapons. I have been a gun owner all my aldult life and love the shooting sport but there are some characters I dont want to see armed.

[capt1sam]

havent lost any guns yet but thats what the british and canadians said ,look where that got them! cant let your guard down or you lose.

[reelcrazyfish]

captaingeorge originally wrote:
So, may we assume, using your logic, that this right includes individual ownership of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, land mines, etc? Military has them, why not you and I?


pbramble originally wrote:
yeah it does. I don't know about you, but I can't afford them. And I'm not smart enough to cook any of that stuff up in my basement.


WHAT!!!! I'm all for owning guns, but I don't want Joe Blow walking around with thermo-nuclear weapons just because he has a clean record and lots of money.

This sort of logic doesn't do much to support your argument.

[pbramble]

Why not? My argument is based on the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anywhere in the consitution I can't own a nuclear device. I think an amendment would probably be made before anyone would consider pushing the issue, but as I said, the Framers made the 2nd amendment in case the event ever arose where private citzens would have to form militias to protect themsevles, or even defeat an unjust government. I don't see how you can't inlcude nuclear devices, even if it does seem ridiculous. It reads "

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

It was written as a check and balance, if the govermnet has them, then private militias should also have them because it screws up the balance that the framers strove to create with the line "being necessary to the security of free state".

However, the United States has signed non-proliferation treaties, I'm not sure how that effects a private citizen owning a wmd.

[reelcrazyfish]

pbramble originally wrote:
Why not? My argument is based on the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anywhere in the consitution I can't own a nuclear device. I think an amendment would probably be made before anyone would consider pushing the issue, but as I said, the Framers made the 2nd amendment in case the event ever arose where private citzens would have to form militias to protect themsevles, or even defeat an unjust government. I don't see how you can't inlcude nuclear devices, even if it does seem ridiculous. It reads "

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

It was written as a check and balance, if the govermnet has them, then private militias should also have them because it screws up the balance that the framers strove to create with the line "being necessary to the security of free state".

However, the United States has signed non-proliferation treaties, I'm not sure how that effects a private citizen owning a wmd.


Are you nucking futs!?! At some point you need to make the distinction between arms and F*@#ING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!! This document was written 200 years ago, I don't think our Founding Fathers had the foresight to envision Weapons of Mass Destruction. Besides, if things ever got so bad that private citizens DID need WMD's to "keep the balance" then there would be no "State" left.

Again, I see your argument, but you've used such an extreme example and continue to defend it, that I'm beginning to think you're crazy. I'm glad you don't have the money or the brains to have a nuclear weapon.....

[RKOCH]

Actually building a nuclear weapon is fairly simple. Gathering the needed materials is the problem. However if you did manage to build such a device you would probally die from radiation exposure before you ever used it from just assembling it. But man it it wold be fun to try. Imagine that you could declare yourself a nuclear power and form your own state.

[pbramble]

Reel crazy,
I didn't start the example, I just answered someone's question. The Framers were looking for a way to balance the governent versus citizens with the intentions of keeping both in line and on the right path. Right now, because of nuclear weapons and the like, the government is way overbalanced. I have not advocated building my own nuclear weapon to counteract this, if you read my first post on the subject, I don't even own a handgun and see no need to own assault weapons. It's an extreme example, but as I said, I think it falls into the realm of the right to bear arms. No one, not even you, has offered a good reason why it doesn't, other than nukes have far more destructive power than anything else, and if the Framers had known about Nukes they would have put a clause in there against it. Bull, if the British had had nukes, I imagine the Framers would have wanted them too. That is flimsy reasoning in my book. How about a response from you that


A: Proves me wrong
B: Does so without personal attacks

bet you can't do either.

[captaingeorge]

pb,
Having a sensible discussion of logic and fact falls on the deaf ears of some. Don't let the wackos get you down.[smile]
If they don't read it in their newsletter, they don't get it.

[reelcrazyfish]

PB
You are right, I can't prove you wrong. Good point. I'm sure our Founding Fathers WOULD want to have WMD if the Brits had them.

Still, I don't think everyday citizens should be allowed to have everything they want, just to keep the balance equal. Call ME crazy, but I actually feel safer knowing people aren't walking around the grocery store with grenades or stockpiling WMD's in their house.

Sorry for the personal attacks. Peace?

JIM

[pbramble]

RCF,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on citizens not having that stuff, can you imagine Donald Trump with one of those things? Gives "You're Fired" a whole new meaning.

Peace

[David-C]

I know a fellow who worked for a reputable gunshop who was caught selling guns without doing the proper paperwork/background checks, etc.

That's not a gun control issue, that's a breaking the law issue.

David

[David-C]

OK,

I just finished reading thru the entire thread.

eastcoastWest, pbramble, Captaingeorge, stripstrike: You all seem to support gun control to some extent or another. That's fine, but can you show me where gun control has actually resulted in crime control? Please note: I am looking for situations where gun control has been implemented and followed by a lowering of crime.

I see no reason to need to own a UZI.
OK. So don't buy one. I know of people who see no reason to need to own a shotgun. Again, so what?

David

[pbramble]

David-C
To your first post, that law was implemented to control who buys guns, i.e. gun control.

To your second challenge, I got nothing, nor have the energy to scour the internet for hours.

[captaingeorge]

David-C,
I am reasonably certain that your mind won't be changed, no matter what I post, or say. Why waste each other's time?

[David-C]

captaingeorge,

Another reason not to reply is because there is no evidence that any kind of gun control is effective for crime control. It is all a myth, generally believed in by persons who confuse feeling with thinking (present company excluded, of course[grin]).

Gun control is feel-good legislation that creates a Byzantine maze of rules which serve only to trip up lawful gunowners without stopping criminals or reducing crime.

David

[David-C]

pbramble,

I've gone to the trouble of doing the search for you. Here's a link: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

And imagine, all this with no insulting or name-calling! It can be done!

David

[stripstrike]

David-C originally wrote:
OK,

I just finished reading thru the entire thread.

eastcoastWest, pbramble, Captaingeorge, stripstrike: You all seem to support gun control to some extent or another.



i never said i supported gun control, i just said i don't support the nra and their now wacked out policies. there's plenty of gun laws on the books already, we don't need more. what we do need to figure out is some way to slow down the rampant gun violence that we already have. if someone can do that, you've answered the million dollar question. i am a gun owner and ex-military and not anti-gun. but as long as people are dying from gun violence daily the average non gun owner makes no distinction between you and the gang-banger in downtown baltimore when it comes to owning firearms, a gun is a gun to them, and that is what the nra hasn't figured out yet and they just come off like zealots, hence no more money from me.

[David-C]

Stripstripe,

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements. If I did it was not intentional.

Perhaps this is the statement that led me to think that:
but as a society we do have a problem with gun violence in urban areas that has to be addressed that the nra does not want to admit

Yes, we do have a violence problem in urban areas, gun and otherwise. The NRA recognizes that these problems exist, but they also understand that the ever more restrictive gun laws that have been passed in, say, the last 20 years are NOT the solution.

It is NOT the NRA's responsibility to find the solution. It IS, however, the NRA's responsibility to safeguard the rights of gun owners. Acquiescing on these "reasonable" (to some) laws does nothing to satisfy those wish to impose more and more draconian laws.

honestly, how many of your guns have been taken? has any legislation passedby any state you live in affected your gun ownership?

It is irrelevant if any of my guns have been taken, or if my state has passed laws that affect gun ownership. I live in Maryland, where the State's Attorney General has issued a formal report calling for the banning of the private ownership of handguns, where every year more and more laws are proposed based on the superstitious beliefs that they will reduce crime. San Francisco has recently banned the ownership of handguns and made long guns non-transferable. A friend living in Massachusetts wants to renew her $100 gun license and has to undergo an interrogation by the sheriff regarding very personal issues, including questions about her medical history and relationships. Scare tactics? I think there are rational reasons to be scared!

I certainly agree with you that we have enough laws, even too many. I too am former military, albeit USAR and I was a REMF, and I enjoy shooting the semi-automatics.

There are people and policies in the NRA that I don't agree with, but I don't even agree with myself all the time.

I do think that gun owners who do not belong to some pro-guns rights organization (doesn't have to be the NRA) are enjoying freedoms that others are defending. I sure don't think that if you are not an NRA member that you suck! Name calling gets us nowhere.

David

[David-C]

Link to Curran's report: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/guns.pdf

From his website: In 2000, Curran participated in the Million Mom March to call for sensible gun control legislation..

[CrabbyDaddy]

captaingeorge originally wrote:
pb,
Having a sensible discussion of logic and fact falls on the deaf ears of some. Don't let the wackos get you down.[smile]
If they don't read it in their newsletter, they don't get it.


Captaingeorge, this is what the pro-gun crowd says of the liberals and gun prohibitionists. History proves that that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. And it shows that armed citizens help keep crime low and the states from tyranny from the gov. Congress has reaffirmed and embellished the Second Amendment on four occasions. This was in 1866,1941,1986, and 2005. I think the anti-gun crowd are the ones that just don`t get it. This is a war they will never win.