Archive for Monday, November 27, 2006

Organization gunning to be new National Rifle Association

November 27, 2006


The membership of the National Rifle Association is 4 million, and it is rare to hear a hunter or competitive shooter make strong statements against the organization.

That's because the NRA is viewed as the uncompromising, stalwart, shooters' rights defender.

So when Ray Schoenke, former Washington Redskins football player, a life-long gun owner and an avid hunter says, "They don't speak for me," it is an attention-getter.

Schoenke and his partners appeared at a national outdoor writers convention in Lake Charles, La., recently to muster awareness and support for the new American Hunters & Shooters Association, billed as an alternative to the NRA.

The association, said Schoenke, president of the new group, is more middle-of-the-road politically than the NRA.

"We think for most hunters and shooters, that's where they are," he said. "There's a middle ground."

The NRA's position on gun control is best epitomized by former group president Charlton Heston's legendary stance indicating the only way he would give up his gun is if someone pried it from his cold, dead hands.

For the Hunters & Shooters Association, the issues do not have to be black and white.

"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

Robert Ricker, the Frederick, Md.-based group's executive director, said there are millions of Americans who are neutral, or who don't have informed opinions about gun ownership, hunting and the shooting sports, and they must be reached by an organization that doesn't seem extremist.

"We want to change the impression of hunting and shooting in the minds of the general public," Ricker said. "The heritage, the fathers and sons, gets forgotten. Instead, 'It's all bad.' What we have to do is teach all these people in the middle."

Not surprisingly, the NRA is attuned to such challenges from competing gun rights groups, hinting that the Hunters & Shooters Association might be a fifth column on the side of gun-possession foes. Though it sounds far-fetched in this case, the NRA says beware of enemy "antis" in sheep's clothing.

The Hunters & Shooters Association might be "trying to market itself as a hunting group," said NRA director of public affairs Andrew Arulanandam. "I would say they do support the (President) Clinton gun ban which encompasses semi-automatic weapons. We have no gray area in our support for hunting."

The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla.

"We have a presence in Congress," Arulanandam said. "We have a presence in all 50 states. Politicians at all levels pay attention to us. We are the largest hunting organization in the country."


frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago


Your suggestions are totally without merit and are a recipe for total gun confiscation. None of the suggestions at all addresses the problem of armed violence - they are just means of hassling law-abiding citizens.

50YearResident 11 years, 5 months ago

Hunters do not need AK-47's or 50 Cal. Rifles or any other type of assult weapons to hunt with. That is where I differ with the NRA.

Carl 11 years, 5 months ago

Old news. The American Hunters & Shooters Association is already known as a "front group" for the anti-gun and anti-hunting folks. Their foundation President, John E. Rosenthal, is one of the founding members of Stop Handgun Violence, an anti-Second Amendment org in Massachussetts. Most gun owners are unaware of the true nature of AHSA and their affiliation and coordination with the Brady Campaign.

50YearResident 11 years, 5 months ago

i-p, 50 Cal are used for target practice but who needs to shoot at 1000 yard targets with bullets that cost over $3 each? And the weopons are over $3000 each. The only good use for this weapon is for snipers. Nobody in the US hunts with a 50 cal rifle, 50 cal pistols maybe.

50YearResident 11 years, 5 months ago

ip, I am not against 50 cal black powder rifles with a range of 200 yds. Have you ever fired a modern 50 cal? They bruise your sholder.

r-thinker. what would you do with a 50 cal rifle? And we are not participating on the board of gay people.

staff04 11 years, 5 months ago

"We have a presence in Congress," Arulanandam said. "We have a presence in all 50 states. Politicians at all levels pay attention to us. We are the largest hunting organization in the country."

"Politicians at all levels pay attention to us."

No, no they don't.

staff04 11 years, 5 months ago

I work on the Hill.

Arulanandam thinks that they run this place. They don't.

staff04 11 years, 5 months ago


They have some influence, but they are not anywhere near being at the level of power they were at a few years ago. They have been losing traction with moderates in Congress over the last 10 years or so...

I blame rabid, uncompromising support to end the assault wepons ban for their slip.

werekoala 11 years, 5 months ago

Actually, you'll find that legally owned guns make up a very small proportion of the guns used in violence. And if you look at the restrictions placed upon the concealed carry permits, it seems very reasonable to me. No felony convictions, no domestic violence charges, so on and so forth. And I really don't care if people own a belt-fed .50 machine gun, as long as they are responsible gun owners.

Where I personally part ways with the NRA is their uncompromising refusal to require SOME form of verification that the gun owners are, in fact, "responsible". In my mind it would be something like the licenses we require to allow people to drive automobiles. I don't think this violates the second ammendment any more than requiring a parade permit violates the first ammendment right to free assembly.

I like the idea of a middle-of-the-road group that can actually get us to reach some consensus on the issue.

badger 11 years, 4 months ago

I tend to agree with staff04.

There's a lot of us out there who believe that responsible gun owners should be protected from having their rights stomped on, but that it can be done effectively without knee-jerk opposition to every single piece of potential legislation that might affect someone's ability to walk into a store and walk out fifteen minutes later with a high-powered assault rifle or an Uzi.

I'm a big advocate of reasonable waiting periods for background checks on certain weapons (you want to buy a high-powered rifle, what say we see if you have, oh, I don't know, a felony record or a list of ex parte and restraining orders as long as your arm, OK?), restrictions on ownership for felons, training requirements for concealed carry, basically a lot of the stuff that's already law.

I get really annoyed when I hear people either affiliated with the NRA formally or speaking "As a lifetime NRA member..." talking about advocating for completely free unrestricted gun ownership. I don't want that, and I want it less than I want heavy restrictions on gun owners, if those will be my only two choices. If I don't have a middle-of-the-road moderate restrictions option, which this group seems to be offering, then I guess I'll reluctantly be on the 'gun control' side. Far better to be called out for 'appeasing gun control advocates' by supporting modest restrictions, in my opinion, than to have to choose between the Wild West and Demolition Man.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

The "gun control movement" isn't at all about gun control. Rather, the purpose of the gun control movement is to break the back of one of the most solidly conservative political constituencies in the nation.

If the gun control movement is successful in banning private firearm ownership, then that removes a rallying point (guns) around which folks make many of their voting decisions. Take away guns and you take away political power.

This American Hunters and Shooters group is just a front for the gun control movement. Under the guise of "sensible gun safety legislation," this group would have just about every firearm in production banned. All that would be left would be shotguns which could only be used by club members who stored them at their club.

The hysteria over so-called "assault weapons" is a hallmark of the gun control movement. Pepper John Q. Public with hyperbole over "deadly assault weapons" and it's just a matter of time till a ban passes. Once "assault weapons" are banned, do you think the gun grabbers will stop there?

The fact of the matter is that the weapon of choice for criminals is the .38 revolver, not the AR-15. It's also a fact that, nationally, 75% of murderers have previous criminal records. Amazingly, 66% of murder victims have previous records as well. Criminals killing criminals...and so law-abiding gun owners are supposed to suffer?

Interestingly, the Chicago police department reports that 80% of persons arrested for murder have at least 8 prior convictions.

It's not the business of government to tell law-abiding, well-intentioned citizens what they may or may not own. Any sort of gun ban runs afoul of the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Carl 11 years, 4 months ago

Below is little piece I snipped from another article regarding the AHSA:

"A shady organization called the American Hunters and Shooters Association recently surfaced. It is true NRA and AHSA are not natural allies because AHSA president Ray Schoenke and executive director Bob Ricker, are gun control advocates and major contributors to Handgun Control, Inc. But what every hunter needs to know is Ray Schoenke regularly contributes to Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy - politicians who work with extremist anti-hunting groups that detest our hunting heritage. How can you claim you're pro-hunting when you support politicians who are anti-hunting? It's like saying, "I'm a hunter, but I support PETA."

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

If individuals wish to use drugs recklessly, then they should pay the price.

I have no problem with people having pictures of naked people, so long as the naked person is competent to grant consent to be photographed naked.

I don't support censorship of books.

Every year, millions of law-abiding Americans send billions of rounds downrange without committing murder or mayhem. There is no need to restrict their activities, or the type of firearms they may acquire.

fsilber 11 years, 4 months ago

We must consider the Supreme Court Miller decision of the 1930s and the controversy surrounding it. In that ruling, the court declared that every citizen is a member of the militia but that the 2nd Amendment pertains only to weapons which could be useful to a militia. Still, we can take comfort in knowing that there's no point to a sporting-rifle ban if the right to own battle rifles and pistols is sacrosanct.

Obviously, we cannot permit private ownership of nuclear bombs, so a line must be drawn somewhere. Even if we draw the line at fully-automatic assault-rifles, there's still no need to ban ordinary self-loading repeaters merely because they are of military origin or are designed to resemble assault rifles.

The gun controllers (and some lower courts) claim that the Supreme Court's statement about all citizens being members of the militia is "mere nonbinding dicta", and argue that aside from uniformed members of the National Guard on active duty the Miller Decision leaves us with no Constitutional protection for the individual right to keep and bear arms. If we accept a ban on military-style self-loading repeaters, we'll be accepting this view -- leaving us with no Constitutional protection for sporting rifle ownership whatsoever. If we accept the position of the ASHA, within a few decades the ownership of hunting rifles might become severely restricted.

This is why the NRA had no choice but to defend the ownership of "assault weapons"; one reason why we must continue to support the NRA; and why we must expose and reject organizations such as the ASHA.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

If someone wishes to smoke tons of pot, that's their business.

However, if, as a result of their choice to smoke tons of pot, they are unable to function in a society where most people do not smoke tons of pot, then they will have to pay the price of poverty, destitution, etc.

staff04 11 years, 4 months ago


The "little piece" you snipped from an article should be properly credited. Those are the words of Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Go figure. The NRA mouthpiece has nothing but criticism for the AHSA...

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

The AHSA is a fraud brought to you by the same folks who started the American Firearms Association several years ago - an organization that is now defunct.

As a firearm owner, I am offered nothing by the AHSA except the possible opportunity to have my firearms confiscated.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

Can someone tell me what the problem with this solution is?

A) We create 3 categories of weapons - single-shot, self-reloading, and fully-automatic. To legally own a firearm, you have to take a safety test for whichever category it falls into, much like the driver's license test, and then prove you can shoot a controlled shot pattern. Once this has been proven, you are issued a license much like a driver's license.

B) you are barred from posessing a firearm for convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and misdemeanors that display aggression/violence to others, and diagnosed psyichiatric disorders that are prone to violence.

C) All legally-owned weapons shall have their serial numbers recorded, and the owner of record shall be criminally and civilly liable as an accesory for any crimes committed with these weapons.

D) All records of firearms owners and guns shall be sealed, and not opened except with a sworn warrant, authorized by a judge, naming the persons/weapons to be researched. This database shall never become public record, and its custodians are charged to permanently destroy the data rather than opening it to any other branch of the government.

E) Possession, or aid of the possession of firearms by those prohibited by law, shall be a felony with a minimum of 5/2 years in prison.

F) Current gun owners shall have five years to bring themselves into accordence with the provisions of this law.

G) Guns shall be defined as man-portable weapons firing one or more rounds that are non reactive (ie, not tipped with explosives/chemicals/poisons), with the ability to selectively target a single man-sized object out of several others nearby. The rounds shall conform to the Geneva conventions and all other standards regarding lawful ordinance.

H) Any exotic weapons such as lasers, rays, artillery, etc. must be obtained by special permit.

I) Any legally owned weapon may be carried without exception, concealed or not, in any public location other than those deemed by the legislative body having jurisdiction to be an imminent security risk presenting clear and present danger to the functioning and order of public society.

Katara 11 years, 4 months ago

Scenebooster wrote:"There are no (good) militias around anymore." ~~~~~~~~~ I so beg to differ with you.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago


"government" is not a boogeyman to be afraid of, any more than it is a fairy godmother that will grant all our dearest wishes. It's a collection of people who want to shape the world they and we live in. And in this country we're fortunate to have control over who those people are.

I'm not of the notion that the government is a perfect solution to all our problems - at best it is slow to change and inefficient, but those problems plague all bureaucracies, government, corporate, and even spiritual.

Put it thusly - you trust the government to come take care of your house if it is on fire, or your loved ones in a medical emergency, or your car in the event of an accident, and to do an adequate, if not stellar job. You trust the government to sterilize the water that you use, determine the value of your property, and give you a fair hearing under the law though mighty interests may weigh against you.

Most importantly, you rely on the government to protect you from the threat of terrorist attacks, by the virtue of your remaining in this country.

I don't pretend that my hastily-typed plan is the final solution, only that it might present a middle road between the shrill voices of the extremists that in my opinion most people have had enough of.

And all I will say to you in closing is this - as a practical matter, the goverment will never be able to confiscate your guns without the consent of the vast majority of citizens. And you will never be able to keep them if a truely large and active majority of your fellow citizens oppose it. And the danger of the current all-or-nothing debate (for either side) is that if you leave no room for compromise, you have nothing to fall back on should the final verdict be against you (and as more and more americans lose their rural roots, it doesn't look promising)

I appreciate the courtesy of your comments.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago


Ummm...there is no need to license people to own firearms.

If you boned up on the facts, you'd know that, of the 48 states that allow citizens to carry defensive firearms, only one does not require a license to carry.

The best way to shut down the illegal trade in firearms is to cut demand, which means arresting and keeping criminals in jail. Current methods of stemming this trade target the supply of firearms, which translates into clamping down on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Katara...most state laws spell out who deserves to be killed in their deadly force laws. Again, it is illegal to kill someone unless you are acting within the authority of deadly force statutes.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

frosty - it wasn't intended to solve the problem of armed violence, it was intended to provide a livable legal framework that was minimally intrusive on the rights of responsible gun owners while protecting the rest of society from preventing irresponsible gun owners.

The first question is: do you agree that it is important to prevent irresponsible gun ownership? (ie, crazy people off their meds, habitual domestic violence offenders, people who keep loaded, unlocked-up guns in a ouse with children, etc).

If you don't, then we're at a rupture point. But I think you'll find very, very little support for a "let all the crazies have all the guns they want!" platform.

And the danger you have, with the all-or-nothing mentality you display, is that when you refuse to compromise, if society does not totally agree with you, you run the risk of losing totally. That's my biggest beef with the NRA - they oppose even the simplest of gun restrictions, and in their ideal world I'd be able to get a handgun from a vending machine.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

As for the problem with armed violence, as long as you're asking for a thumbnail sketch of The World According To Werekoala, here it goes:

  • Reduce the profit incentive for the illegal drug trade. It's nuts, in my mind, to accept the huge black market access into this country that drug trafficing provides, in a day and age when a small truck can devistate a city. The only reason this works is because "getting real" about the drug trade would mean giving up on the insane idea of attacking the problem from a supply side. And while this may sound like wild-eyed hippy talk, compare murder rates during Prohibition to after it.

  • The single biggest cause of armed violence, in my opinion, is a surplus population of young males lacking much incentive to stay out of trouble. So first, make sure effective contraception is available to all men/women, and that they know how to use it. Second, being on contraception should be mandatory for anyone recieveing government aid - if you're getting help, you need to spend your time saving up and working to get out of there, not raising kid after kid. Third, if we're going to be giving you money, you're gonna work for it. In a daycare, or learning a job skill, or even some of those CCC-style programs from the 30s.

  • Along with that, the more that people have to lose, the less willing they are to lose it. So first, we need a strong domestic economy. That means not exporting our jobs overseas to save a buck or two in the short ter, And in turn, that means fixing a broken health care system that rewards employers for outsourcing.

  • Finally, most criminals have extensive records of crime towards property and animals before they graduate to person crimes. We need to make early identification and treatment of these troubled personalities a primary job, rather than waiting for them to snap.


So there you go, frosty. Notice, not one word about guns. Why? Because as you well know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And as england and the uk have proven, a decrease in the number of guns doesn't really decrease the number of violent crimes (it does decrease the murder rate, though.)

Violent crimes themselves are a symptom of the society that fosters them, and if you want to change their frequency, I think you need to change one or more of the factors listed above.

Richard Heckler 11 years, 4 months ago

The NRA may well be more afraid of losing its' political influence if choice is provided to gun owners. For the NRA one viewpoint is all that matters. The NRA seems to weigh in on matters over and above gun ownership.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago


Little of what you propose is based in fact. I have never seen anyone advocate letting all the "crazies" have all the guns they want.

Furthermore, your assertion that "irresponsible" gun ownership is the cause of gun violence just ain't the case.

The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who, as a matter of habit, ignore laws against rape, robbery, assault, and murder. It is goal directed behavior, not random irresponsibility.

The fact of the matter is that accidental firearm injuries are at historical lows - primarily as the result of education programs sponsored by the NRA.

As far as gun laws go, there are many tens of thousands of gun laws on the book as we speak, and more being added at the close of every legislative session. There are plenty of gun laws. But, gun laws only apply to folks willing to obey them.

The NRA opposes ineffective, politically motivated gun laws and there is nothing wrong with standing in opposition to such laws.

On the matter of confiscation, the gun grabbers would be more than happy to confiscate every gun from every law-abiding citizen if they had the chance.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago


Get down to the brass tacks: do you, or do you not agree that we as a civil society have the right and duty to pass laws aimed at prohibiting gun ownership by those we deem irresponsible?

If not, then how are you NOT arguing that all people should be able to own any firearm, regardless of criminal history or mental stability? Or in my personal short-hand, "giving guns to the crazies!"

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

"Furthermore, your assertion that "irresponsible" gun ownership is the cause of gun violence just ain't the case."

Sounds like you're arguing against yourself here - you're trying to tell me that people who are responsible with guns commit more violence than people who are irresponsible with them? 'Cause I'd say shooting other people is generally considered to be irresponsible, outside of extenuating circumstances.

I think the point you're trying to make is that ILLEGAL gun ownership is responsible for more gun violence than LEGAL gun ownership -something I'd completely agree with. I'd say that illegal gun ownership though, is inherently irresponsible gun ownership.

I truely don't want to disarm you, assuming you're not an unstable nut ball. I know criminals will never willingly disarm.

But the NRA mentality wants to have it's cake and eat it. Wants to say - "Look, we're responsible gun owners - we're not the danger" (which by and large I agree with) - but then kicks and screams any time a person like myself presents a plan designed to get people to prove that they are, in fact, responsible.

I really don't care if you own an AR-15, AK-47, or even a .50 belt-fed machine gun, as long as you are responsible with them. I just want you to prove that you are, rather than just expecting me to take you at your word.

Because the endpoint of the NRA mentality is that we only find an irresponsible person has an arsenal AFTER he shoots up a school/church/sporting event. And to me, that's just unacceptable.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

"The NRA opposes ineffective, politically motivated gun laws and there is nothing wrong with standing in opposition to such laws."

Yes, but it also opposes effective laws that could lead to a decrease in gun violence out of a fear of a slippery-slope argument, not realizing that every school shooting erodes their support a little bit more, until rather than giving a little and working along with the rest of society to make sure the slope isn't slippery - one day you'll find that the slope has turned into a cliff, and you're being thrown off of it.

Happened in Britain. It is better to bend, than to break.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago


Bone up on the facts, why don't ya?

It's already illegal to shoot people unless they deserve it. It's already illegal for drug adicts, convicted felons, domestic abusers, persons adjudicated mentally deficient, and a host of others from owning firearms. That's all the law can do.

It's time for you to stop blowing smoke, werekoala. Please describe which laws the NRA has opposed that would have a true and meaningfull effect on school shootings or "gun violence" as you put it? C'mon, spell them out. Please provide the bill number when you do.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

They have consistently opposed any that licenses legal gun ownership. As in, right now, you have to prove you're responsible enough to drive a car, but not to carry a gun.

I really don't think any responsible person should be prevented from carrying a gun, any more than any responsible person should be prevented from driving a car.

But I'd like to see some sort of formal certificate endorsing the responsibility of anyone weilding a firearm, that must be produced upon request of an LEO.

And while I can't expect us to suceed where Canada has failed, I don't find the general concept of being able to trace firearms back to their sources to be abhorrent either.

Apparently, you do, and that's why you think I want to take your guns.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago


I try to separate discrete points through separate posts. Not sure what the ** matter is?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are more crazy people and people with criminal backgrounds and so forth than are reflected in those statistics. Which tells me that they are getting their guns on the black market.

And while it's not a complete solution, working to shut down the black market could very well limit the gun violence in this country.

skewed_veiw 11 years, 4 months ago

Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on November 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"But had this dips**t not had a gun in his gun rack, this other guy wouldn't be dead."

Not true sceneb, you can kill people with all kinds of things.

Could have used an axe. Like a guy in Topeka did when his brother wouldn't do the dishes.

He could have lured him out side and run him down with his car.

He could have stabbed him in the head with an ice pick, put draino in his beer, held his head in the toilet till he drowned.

There are lot's of ways to kill some body if you think they need killing.

It's becoming more and more evident that we should probably ban sporting events. If fans aren't shooting each other they are slamming their heads into overpasses. Sports causes stupid.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 4 months ago

"As in, right now, you have to prove you're responsible enough to drive a car, but not to carry a gun."

You do not have to have ANY permit to OPEN CARRY. Any idiot can carry a loaded gun in Kansas as long as it is NOT CONCEALED.

The CONCEALED CARRY does require what the poster above stated.

You need to brush up on the laws here.

scetwe 11 years, 4 months ago

The existence of guns -- of instruments designed, engineered, polished and oiled for the purpose of killing things, mainly people -- is a scandal, an evil, a strange, profoundly disturbing comment on human nature. Adorno remarked that the illusion of human progress is exposed by the difference between the spear and the guided missle, showing that humans have grown cleverer but not wiser through history. It is a devastating reflection on our moral health that guns are not rarer than gold, and harder to find than peace in the present gun-infested misery of the world.

werekoala 11 years, 4 months ago

"Guns are a right, not a priviledge. Don't take my assault rifle unless you want to be assaulted."

Really? Anyone has the right to own any weapon, regardless of his/her criminal history or mental instability?

Because as several other posters have pointed out, we already prevent people like tis from owning firearms - I'd just like to see it more effectively and uniformally applied.

Here's the deal - if you're responsible in owning an assault rifle, I'll never try to take it from you. But if you're a paranoid idiot, you should have your guns taken from you, as you're a danger to the community.

I believe in the second ammendment - citizens can and should be expected to take the ultimate responsibility for the safety of themselves and their families. But so many today seem to want that right, without having to face up to the inherent responsibility it imposes to be responsible with the use of deadly force.

Your post reminds me of some of the nut jobs I've met who seem to go to bed each night praying that someone will try to break into their house and give them an excuse to shoot them. Or the idiots who refuse to purchase trigger locks and gun safes because the constitution doesn't require them. these are the jackasses who end up shooting their friends at 3am when they're looking for a place to crash.

If you're a responsible gun owner, you've faced up to the fact that by preparing to wield a firearm in self defense, you may well be required to shoot and kill another human being. But if you're responsible, the prospect doesn't thrill you, and hope and pray that you'll never be forced to use it.

Katara 11 years, 4 months ago


I know what you mean but this sentence doesn't seem to help your argument.

"It's already illegal to shoot people unless they deserve it."

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

So...lemme see if I have this right...

We can't keep criminals in jail, so the best tactic is to criminalize gun ownership which now creates a whole new class of criminals from what were once law-abiding citizens. that makes sense.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago

I guess that was a trick question. Sorry...

Kelly Powell 11 years, 4 months ago

What calibre is the mauser...7mm? does it have a mannlicher stock?i love old bolt actions.....I used to own a old 30/40 had the longest bolt of any gun i ever seen. the shape of the projectile forced you to rainbow it a bit after 200 yards, but still damm accurate.

cowgomoo 11 years, 4 months ago

It will never happen, but I'd vote yes on a constitutional amendment modifying the second amendment to still allow state militias, but doing away with the right to keep and bear arms.

frosty_da_snowman 11 years, 4 months ago


And why, pray tell, would you vote that way?

cowgomoo 11 years, 4 months ago

Posted by frosty_da_snowman (anonymous) on December 2, 2006 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)


And why, pray tell, would you vote that way?

There are many things I appreciate about British law, foremost are the gun laws, secondly the notion that the loser always pays the winner's attorney. The first will take a change in the Second Amendment, the last will take a legislative slap down of the ABA and trial lawyer's Lobby.

As to the militias, I have 25 years in with the National Guard, so I'm biased in that area.

Nothing personal, really, but the phrase "pray tell" gives me the heebie jeebies. While I'm up on this soap box, so does the word "ilk." ughhhhuuhh. And when I see that someone has used words like "libtard" or "republicrap" or something similar, I just keep scrolling down without reading.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 11 years, 4 months ago

I really should say something about this. Since the great state of Kansas, and most other states, are not willing to allocate the funds necessary to build enough prison space. They are obviously letting a lot of criminals loose, when they need to be locked up. This is precisely why every state needs to have a "shall issue" concealed carry law. The one that Kansas passed into law, overriding the governor's veto, has too many loopholes in it. Places where a weapon cannot be carried. Other than that, it is a good law. Now Kansas needs a castle doctrine law. To me, however, more important than anything else is truth in sentencing. Life in prison should MEAN life in prison. No parole, no excuses, life period! No wonder most of the populace doesn't understand, many of the lawyers in the legislature don't understand. They dreamed up the confusing laws. Thank you, Lynn

cowgomoo 11 years, 4 months ago

I wonder what the crime statistics were before the advent of personal handguns?

In any event, jumping from statistics to causality is always rooted in sandy soil.

Fun with statistics:

The softer a road's asphalt is, the greater increase in gallons of ice cream sold. Hence, soft asphalt ALWAYS causes Baskin Robbin's stock to rise.

Or my personal favorite: 3 out of every 4 people make up 75% of the population

roger_o_thornhill 11 years, 4 months ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on November 27, 2006 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is rich, real rich.

While we have another thread on this board running on and on about essentially the idea two men can get married and have anal intercourse, we are suggesting that I can not or should not own and shoot a .50 cal rifle......

Folks, we are one screwed up nation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OMG I had to stop there. What is this exactly? Irony? Sarcasm? Idiocy? Lunacy? Exactly how are the two related? Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie roll center of the Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.