American gun owners are under siege. It could get worse. Another spree killer could open fire on another unarmed population. Imagine the furore if the madman or terrorist (or madmen and terrorists) didn’t use an AR. The antis would say, see? It’s guns generally. We need to limit access to handguns! Shotguns! Hunting rifles! All guns. Not to coin a phrase, it’s open season on American gun rights. The People of the Gun need to come together to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of longevity. Yes, there is that. Life insurance aside, you’re no good to anyone if you’re dead. So don’t forget to protect yourself and your loved ones. Carry a gun, both in the home and out and about (void where prohibited by law). Train to use it effectively. Store it safely. As the Brits say, it’s the bus you don’t see that kills you. Given their history of civilian disarmament and position at the top of Europe’s violent crime league table, they would know.
Perhaps the govt should offer to “buyback” a civilians guns in exchange for cradle to grave economic support. Those who take up the offer can sit at home watching CNN and Oprah all day without a care, no bills to worry about, no healthcare problems, just stay inside where its safe and let the police state have its will.
Problem is, buying and then supporting would be a double whammy on the (dwindling number of) tax payers.
Lack of tax base hasnt slowed big govt down yet, they can just print more Obamabucks.
“obamabucks” — I like that one!
thats a good one. i will be using “Obamabucks”
The following might be more to the point:
If your car is stolen, the government issues you a check to pay for a comparable replacement.
If your house is burglarized, the government pays to replace everything that was stolen.
If you are disabled by a mugger so that you can no longer support your family, the government pays all your medical bills and replaces your salary.
If the stay-at-home mother of your children is murdered by a rapist, the government pays the cost of a nanny to help keep house and raise your children.
Feel free to use this and alter it in your own way. I will be sending this out to all of the state and federal representatives that I can afford to buy stamps for. That should be a lot. I urge everyone here to do the same. Email will not be enough this time. Have your entire family sign them as a representation of the family unit and not just “gun-loving dad.”
#Your Name
#Your Address
#City State Zip
#Date
#Representative Name
#Address
#City State Zip
RE: Firearm Restrictions
To Mr/Ms #State Representation
We, as a family, are very disturbed by the continued attack on our gun rights. It seems that the bodies of the innocent in Newtown were not even cold before politicians at the state and federal level started attacking our affirmed 2nd Amendment rights.
So we are going to lay it out very simply:
Our family does not support any further restrictions on gun ownership, magazine capacities or gun purchasing for law abiding citizens.
We urge you to look into the real causes behind the violence and mass murders like Sandy Hook. Causes such as “Gun Free School Zones” that create victim-rich environments. Causes such as our failed mental health system. And causes such as the lack of personal responsibility as a whole in society that leads to such violence.
We will be taking note of your representation in the coming months and it will be remembered. Knee-jerk reactions in politics can have long lasting consequences – let not your hand be part of any such nonsense.
Sincerely,
Father (Voter / Campaign Contributor)
Mother (Voter / Campaign Contributor)
Son (Future Voter)
While I would admit to living in a city, I am not keen on providing the gov’t with my name and address.
They already know.
by posting that comment, big bro can tell where you are.
Amen and Thank You!!! Will definitely be using this!!!
Suzanna Gratia Hupp is a rock star.
The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun. Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, “How Close is Too Close?” (From Wikipedia)
The point here is that to effectively use a handgun for self defense requires significant training and practice. Mere ownership isn’t enough.
A woman was killed recently in Oakland, California from stray bullets. It seems as though some well-armed young entrepreneurs in the retail pharmaceutical trade (who are also subject to burdensome government regulations) were having a dispute over sales territories, and conducted their negotiations with firearms. The woman’s death was in the nature of “collateral damage” – but she’s dead. Both sides were armed – so just “having a gun” wasn’t much of a deterrent to their use as a form of alternative dispute resolution.
If gun enthusiasts are serious about protecting both their right to bear arms and also the safety of their fellow citizens, why can’t we talk about federal-level firearms safety laws? National-level laws would help stop the straw-buyer problem that allows the arming of Mexican drug cartels by purchasers in Arizona (The “Fast and Furious” problem was that the buyers weren’t breaking any laws until they actually sold the guns to the cartels – and proving this was almost impossible).
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can’t swoop in and grab all your guns. It remains up in the air as to whether they’ll allow even reasonable regulations on their ownership, storage, and use. (Remember the house that blew up a while back due to a natural gas explosion? Improperly stored ammunition and/or reloading supplies could do similar damage.) Shouldn’t the two sides at least talk about passing some laws making it harder for the bad guys to become bad guys with guns?
No. When the new gun laws take effect it still would have little impact on crime levels. Then your questions would be asked again. A free society cannot restrict the law abiding in a vain attempt to stop crimes. Our justice system is designed to apprehend and prosecute a person once a crime has been committed. The problem is there must be a victim before here is a criminal.
Why do criminals who commit violent crimes get out of prison after just a few years? The recidivism rate is too damn high. That is where the primary focus should be.
Yeah, they “can’t swoop in and grab all your guns” is correct. They can’t have them all (right now), but they’ll take some. And then later – some more. And later – the rest.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can’t swoop in and grab all your guns
Do you have a citation for that?
“We, as a family, are very disturbed by the continued attack on our gun rights. It seems that the bodies of the innocent in Newtown were not even cold before politicians at the state and federal level started attacking our affirmed 2nd Amendment rights.”
should read:
We, as a family, are very disturbed by the continued attack on our Civil Rights . It seems that the bodies of the innocent in Newtown were not even cold before politicians at the state and federal level started attacking our affirmed 2nd Amendment rights.
Good improvement – thank you.
I am beginning to believe they are not so much after our guns, as they are after a sub-culture they do not understand and therefore perceive as dangerous and demonic.
To all my brothers and sisters of the gun, you are all the new Jews.
see: proof that the reporters don’t even know what the hell they are talking about. Christine Amanpour said it was true, so its true.
–
We have gun owners who understand what ‘modern sporting rifles’ are, and non-gun owners who understand ‘assault rifles’. The information in the media is so incorrect, it makes me really friggin pissed.
Jewish Marksman nailed it. They don’t hate our guns. They hate us.
They hate us because we think for ourselves, because we try to be self-reliant and self-sufficient, because we try to prepare. They hate us because we refuse to march in lockstep or dance to their tune. They hate us because they are weak and we are strong. They hate us because they fear us.
And now I’m starting to hate them right back.
+1, and they hate us because we want to be free.
L’chaim!
“They” hate a stereotype, and so do you if you let yourself. If liberals assume we’re all racist rednecks worried about the foreigners and the government, then they are at least as wrong as us assuming they’re all a bunch of welfare yuppies. It’s time to look beyond easy generalizations and educate the ignorant not vilify them, even if they vilify us first.
I don’t remember where I said that liberals hate us. I wonder if you can point that out to me.
The wingnuts hate us, period. I’m not backing down from that position and I’m not going to make it politically correct. If that bothers someone, I don’t care. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I’m cool with being the new Jews. One team one fight.
You know, in the past 24 hours I have come to the same conclusion. We think as individuals. We form and reflect upon our ideas and morals based on a better starting point..I think, the same place as our ancestors and The Founders. They saw their own self-worth as an inviolate principle. They understood that each person has his/her Rights from the first breath they take to the last, and all their neighbors and children have those same Rights. They recognized that we form a Nation and a Government for that Nation by our choice and consent based on mutual respect for every person’s Rights, and in the interest of protecting those Rights for all.
Yes, the opponents we face now do hate us because they fear us. They think they only have the self-worth the Government grants them, so they hate us for thinking otherwise. They think that no one is worthy of being trusted to act in a moral, responsible way because they believe they cannot do so, so they fear us because we assert that we can and prove it daily.
They think that “victimization” is their lot and should be the lot of everyone, but we think every person can and ought to be the arbiter of his/her own Life and Freedom, so they hate and fear us for rejecting their weakness of mind and spirit. They believe that “Life is so dear and Peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery”. We do not, so they hate and fear us.
Now, I think I finally understand what happened in Germany in the 1930’s. It gives me no comfort, but there it is. During the Cold War, President Kennedy gave his famous speech in Berlin where he asserted “Ich bin ein Berliner!” So, today I proudly proclaim “I am a new Jew!”
“I am a new Jew!”
It’s better than being an old Jew. Just ask Mel Brooks. 🙂
“They hate us because we think for ourselves, because we try to be self-reliant and self-sufficient, because we try to prepare. They hate us because we refuse to march in lockstep or dance to their tune.”
They hate traditional American masculine virtues. They seek to stamp out our life choices and cultural group. They want a progressive fascist nanny-police state and society.
BINGO!
+1
Good first half of the video – up and until she couldn’t state that military weapons are select fire and AR-15s are semi-automatic.
Other reasons to own an AR-15 – home invasion robberies, near the unsecured US-Mexico border, hunting, shooting, competition, and self defense after earthquakes, riots, or power outages. (I wouldn’t mention zombies on Fox, but those damn zombies aren’t going to shoot themselves)
Also, the whole “what if teachers want to teach” is bullshit. The last I’ve checked, having a concealed or open carry firearm does not prohibit one from teaching. I’ve gone into schools and given presentations on career fairs and driving safety while armed and in uniform.
Well spoken – Hupp. The interviewer didn’t know how to deal with someone who would be able to also defend her words. While not an owner of AR-15 type weapons, I do think there is a validity to the ownership that should not be interfered with. Case in point – the continually increasing of violence in Mexico; that and its exposure to all states that border it (TX, NM, AZ, CA). What result when their violence is now our violence? I sure wouldn’t want to just rely on the government at that time. When that happens, non-high capacity guns will be of little recourse and response.
And another thing. How many decades would it be before any change would even affect the continued violence in America? Australia might be a good answer here. SUMMARY: The homicide rates provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad. See: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html.
I wish I could slap that reporter silly… She absolutely proved without a doubt how they are misinformed and uneducated when it comes to firearms.