Gun Control

[OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET]

WORTH A READ.........
We hear about "the truth" every day, but most people do not speak the truth, they speak their "beliefs" here are the facts...
By Robert A. Waters - 06.23.03
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter."What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask."Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
Omega

[honkey1]

Great post
They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.:mad:

[Boatcop]

Gun control = sight alignment & trigger pull.

[Elk Chaser]

when you see a gun control supporter, just aim for their head.:yuk:

[FastTimmy]

Very good post.
It saddens me to often here one gun owner believe that another gun owner will fight for his right to bare arms for him....
It is up to us to educate and fight....

[Essex502]

Control sux. If criminals use guns then make the punishment HARSH! Don't take guns away from law abiding citizens who need to defend themselves from the criminals that , by definition, are violating society's rules.

[cola]

Gun control, use two hands.
Late,

[Forkin' Crazy]

That is why I am a member of the NRA! I thought that story sounded familiar. As I got half way through it, I though, "Sounds like this story came from England."
Tony Martin is now out of jail. His would be robber was put in jail at least two more times for robbery or a similar offense and was still released before Mr. Martin.
This story was published in America's First Freedom ( a publication of the NRA) in a cover story called A Man Without a Country. He now lives in a secret location due to threats on his life from relatives and friends of his would be robbers.
The system is really screwed up there. There was a man who defended himself from a robber in his house and killed him with a sameri (sp?) sword. He was convicted of "using unreasonable force" and put in jail.
There was an old woman that lived in a rural area of England (rural areas are the robbers favorite b/c it takes the now armed
"bobbies" so long to get there) that put a fence up with razor wire on it. She was ordered to take it down in fear that it might injure someone (the crooks over there have more rights than the law abiding citizens).
They want to do it here. Regisration is just the start and a key factor in taking your guns.
England and Australia have already fallen to this. Canada is struggling with it now.
The 9th COP does not help, letting wrongful death law suits against gun manufactors continue.
Kinda funny, Clinton and his cronies passed assult weapon laws, which have done nothing to stop crime. The guns merely looked "bad" and were an easy target. They are no more dangerous than a revolver. That was a political stunt.
The only way to stop the lawless is to arm everyone, well, almost. You see, most crooks are chicken shit and would not dare rob someone if they though that there was a chance that the intended victim was armed...
Proud to be a member in good standing of the National Rifle Association!
:)

[vdrivenman]

the mistake is leaving either subject alive. you eliminate them completely and then there is NO ONE to testify againist you.
you shoot to kill not wound, you are in FEAR for your life and that of your family.

[Forkin' Crazy]

Not in England. Fire arms are illegal, unless you still own a hunting rifle/shotgun for hunting purposes only and it takes a lot of red tape to do that. The key thing with this is, "using unreasonable excessive force". You could use a baseball bat and still go to jail.

[BADBLOWN572]

GUN CONTROL SUCKS!!! I am a firm believer that anyone who can pass a background check and goes through a safety course should be able to carry a concealed weapon. Look at the crime level in Florida and Texas. Thieves are not stupid. They won't try to commit a violent crime against someone who they think might be carrying a weapon. Crooks have guns, allow the law abiding citizen their constitutional right to protect themselves.
My grandfather once told me a funny story about how much things have changed in society today. Back in the 1940's-50's he was an attorney in Santa Ana, CA. One of his clients was at home asleep when a burgler broke into his house. He took out his shotgun fired the first time and missed. The burgler sprinted for the front door. Just as he was getting off of the front porch, he got blasted in the back with a 12ga. The thief died on the spot. When the police arrived they found the back door was damaged and the guy laying on the front porch. They told the owner of the house that they had to run for a coffee break and when they came back to take the report they would highly recommend that the thief be laying inside of the entry way to his house. Sure enough, when they came back the thief was inside of the house and it was ruled self defense. Now days that would be considered manslaughter. What ever happened to the good old days?

[burbanite]

Right To Keep And Bear Arms (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/)
CCRKBA (http://www.ccrkba.org/)
There are hundreds of others but these will provide enough reading for a while.
Now is the time to get with the program, make sure your politicians fully understand your views and your resolve. Leave them with no doubt that if they support gun control (or are silent when it is time to choose a side) then your vote will go elsewhere.
September 2004 is when the AWB sunsets, the move is on to renew it and possibly extend it to include many other guns. Make the difference now.

[Cas]

Doctors kill more people each year than do guns.
Cars do the same.
Children's deaths are caused by choking on small obhects more often than a bullet.
could go on and on.....

[MudPumper]

"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it!!"

[STV_Keith]

NRA Life Member here. The crap spewed by some of the people that are proponents of gun control is just rediculous. It's amazing to me that people buy into it.
An armed society is a polite society.

[bronco88]

Gun Control - The Choice Of Criminals

[Dave C]

gun control = being able to change the clip after emptying it and still being able to hit your target.

[eliminatedsprinter]

The idea that passing more laws and restrictions on the law abiding will affect the behavior of the non-law abiding is a classic example of "Magical Thinking" and "Magical Thinking" is a key symptom of some types of serious mental illness.

[mirvin]

Yeah, CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW. That's why gun control doesn't work.
Gun Control = I don't shoot you for being a ****wad.;)

[burbanite]

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 Caroline
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 asshole. 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!

[burbanite]

Older but relevant
You have NO constitutional right to ANY Gun!
By Mike Dillon
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights DOES NOT protect your right to own or possess firearms! The Second Amendment only allows you to use a firearm while in the National Guard!
That is the publicly stated position of the Clinton-Gore Justice Department. This position was not whispered in some back-room meeting -- it was stated in open court in a case now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate court is hearing the government's appeal of U.S. v. Emerson, a Texas case resulting from a divorce action that resulted in Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson being indicted by a federal grand jury. Emerson was in violation of the Lautenberg Amendment -- the local court had placed a restraining order against him, making it against federal law for him to possess a firearm.
In April 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings ruled that this law was an unconstitutional infringement of the "individual right to bear arms." Cummings set aside the indictment, and in doing so, struck a grievous blow to the gun prohibitionists. Of course, the government appealed the decision.
Your deer rifle and your duck gun are on the same "to-confiscate" list as all handguns, "assault" rifles and "sniper" rifles. It makes no difference what your gun looks like, the official position of the Clinton-Gore administration (which will continue under Gore if he's elected) is that YOU have NO right to own it.
You can continue to hide in your duck or deer blind and pretend that you're not a target. Keep pretending, right up until that day when the government looks at the roster of hunting licenses (you know, the infamous "list" you don't want to be on by joining the NRA) and comes to your house to confiscate your "thutty-thutty."
Oh, you'll fight? You'll give up your gun when they pry it from your cold, dead fingers? Bullshit. If you won't fight now by spending a few bucks on the NRA, why should I believe that you'll be willing to spend your BLOOD later? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather fight to keep them from taking my rights away at the ballot box instead of trying to get them back by fighting in the street.
Now, if Cummings' decision is upheld on appeal, not only will the Lautenberg Amendment be invalidated, hundreds of gun laws will be in jeopardy of being struck down.
We're all holding our breath awaiting the Court of Appeals' ruling, especially since the most significant bit of information to come out of the case is the on-record position of "our" government on the Second Amendment. Your deer rifle and your duck gun are on the same 'to confiscate' list as all handguns, 'assault' rifles and 'sniper' rifles. What can you do? First, if you're not already registered, register to vote. Second, join the NRA, today. Third, and most important, tell all your hunting and skeet-shooting buddies that they need to do the same if they want to keep eating pheasant, duck and venison. This is not just a fight to keep politically incorrect "weapons," it's a fight to keep ALL firearms, AND the freedom our forefathers won with firearms.
The following exchange is from the transcript of the oral arguments:
Judge William L. Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Mateja: "Yes."
Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Mateja: "Exactly."
Mateja then argued that even membership in the National Guard would not qualify an individual to possess firearms.
Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"
Mateja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
That pretty much disqualifies your Model 70, your Model 700, your Marlin 336, your Perazzi, your Weatherby, your Anshutz, or your Merkel from protection under the Second Amendment, now doesn't it? And you thought the government was only after those nasty high-capacity handguns and "assault weapons." But you didn't have any of those, so you weren't worried. For the terminally clueless, let me spell it out -- IT'S LONG PAST TIME TO START WORRYING. IT'S TIME TO ACT!
You MUST pull your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have it) long enough to understand these points:
The Emerson case IS going to the Supreme Court. The losing side will appeal and the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the case. (Even if they decide not to hear it.)
If the Clinton-Gore Justice Department wins before the Supreme Court, your rights will be gone before the ink dries on their ruling.
If Gore wins the election he will appoint justices who will rule for the government.
If that happens, it will be because MOST gun owners don't vote.
This is the single most important election in our lifetime. If you don't make your vote count, if you piss your vote away on a "protest vote" for a third-party candidate like Pat Buchanan or Jesse Ventura or maybe a write-in vote for Ross Perot, then you are probably too stupid to own a firearm anyway.
For more information, visit the following websites: saf.org, keepandbeararms.com, nra.org (See NRA-ILA Fax Alerts - Vol. 7 No. 24 6/16/00).
[U][U][SIZE=3]

[Dave C]

FYI, The 2nd amendment says "well regulated militia" not "national guard"
Currently the law says the definition of "well regulated militia" is any person, not necessarily in the military or national guard. (actually it says "man", not person, but its an old law)
I remember that they were trying to change the definition of militia.
Thanks Burbanite.

[burbanite]

Exactly Dave C,
that shows that how the anti gunners make the assumption that the rest of the population are ignorant and would be duped into believing that spin. They are banking on the fact that they have an understanding of the real meaning of those words and you and I don't.
I feel so much safer in their hands....

[LOWRIVER2]

I personally don't care what citizens own, I just can't stand people getting upset when I pull up to a shots fired call and pull out either my M16 or my Bennelli from my car, too many people think my cops should only carry hand guns and shotguns. They can all kiss my ass. The citizenry of South Central Los Angeles are well armed and I damn well will and do carry an arsenal to deal with the ones who choose to shoot at my peers. As happened last week, AK-47 ambush on two rookie officers, gun jammed after one round, first round entered engine block, detectives found 20 live rounds in a trail as the suspect ran and kept trying to clear the malfunction. Two officers were ambushed less than a block away the week earlier, six 9mm rounds into car, one richocheted off the officer's radio on his belt and passed through and through his uniform shirt without hitting him, very lucky.
I'm all for free will but to anyone who thinks cops should not carry rifles, go to hell, thankyou.

[CA Stu]

Not to go against the grain here, but how many people are killed by handguns annualy in the UK? Not many, that's for sure.
The cat's out of the bag in the USA, gun control will never work here because there are already too many on the street to eliminate. In the UK, they don't have a whole lot of gun related crime.
You can't measure that case by our yardstick, folks.
Different culture, different laws, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the USA.
I reckon quite a few board members are enlightened, intelligent, worldly folk.
But for the few that aren't, here's a newsflash: The USA is not the center of the universe.
Cheers
CA Stu

[mirvin]

Someone should find the statistics for states that allow "open carry" or even"concealed carry" like AZ & Texas- I know there's others. I've read many an article that shows gun related crime to be way less than in the states where carrying is illegal.
Mirv;)

[77charger]

I like to collect guns myself as they are another hobby.I dont care for golf,baseball.basketball,etc.But hey its your choice what you like to do i like to shoot long distance like others like to golf and try to put a small ball in hole hundred or more yards away.
Luckily i was able to buy an ar15 before the KA ban

[eliminatedsprinter]

I used to keep up with those stats. The last time I looked 30 states had "shall issue" carry permit policys and 1 state (Vermont) allows all it's citizens with clean records to carry with no permit needed. In all of these states violent street crime has dropped at a rate far faster than the states that do not allow or severely restrict access to permits. The exception is Vermont which has never restricted carry in law abiding adults and has always had very low violent crime rates.

[LASERRAY]

You're all a bunch of gunslinging, beerguzlin', tractor-pull watching, faggot hatin', horsepower cravin', NASCAR watchin, hippie hatin', wifebeater wearin, Clinton bashin', bush supporting, flag wavin', Redneck Warmongers!....................................... ...! Me TOO!:D
TED KENNEDY'S CAR HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE THEN MY GUN!!! :mad:
Just say no to gun control!
Lock-up your guns!
Teach your children about firearms!
Bear Arms Always! It's Guaranteed!

[nastyhabit]

NRA life member--california rifle and pistol member ---if ya vote for the libs-dems your voteing to loose your gun rites desert for buggys and bikes and next your boats --an unarmed man is a subject and an armed man is a citizen, and like ted nugent says kill it and grill it----nasty

[OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET]

I fully stand behind the officers and think personally you should be equipped no less than a soldier would be. you guys are the soldiers for OUR streets. Sounds like you need to move to Texas where officers get the respect they deserve......
On a seperate note. do other states allow you to carry shotguns in your vehicle if they are in plain open sight? I know in Texas they do, hence the gunracks in pickups. IMO a shotgun is much more effective than a handgun but of course it can not be carried on your person at all times. You'd be really surprised how much more courtious drivers are when you have a shotgun and two rifles in the back window of your pickup. wonder why:confused:
Omega (loves livin' in Texas, hopefully the last state to fall)

[Sleek-Jet]

I just took a CC class the first of the month. Fingerprints are in, and I should have the permit sometime after the first of the year.
Took me a couple years to make up my mind on this. Didn't want to be on one of "those" lists. But, then I figured that they already know I hunt, have bought guns, ammunition, ect.... .
Anyway, I believe the national guard/malitia argument stems from the formation of the National Guard. If my facts are right, before the NG was formed in the early 1900's, all the states had "malitias" where all able bodied men between certin ages were required to be available if needed. When the NG was formed, this requirement was superceded. So now the anti-gunners sight the NG as the "regulated melitia" stated in the Second Ammendment, even though nothing about a requirment for joining a goverment sponsered military orginazation is mentioned.

[Essex502]

Do you think criminals will turn in their guns if more gun control laws are passed? Hell no! They will be the only ones with them!
What about Northern Ireland? Do they have gun control there? Sure works well, doesn't it?

[burbanite]

Looks like those that support the right to bear arms are willing to stand up and say so here whereas those that don't agree with it are silent.
Kind of works the same way in our every day lives until it comes time to take action, then the ones who are afraid of guns are woken up by a political spin doctor who needs votes, these same people are ignorant enough to be fooled into believing the lies and follow like sheep. In the meantime we are blindsided because we still believe that our rights will be upheld.
This is an excerpt from the writer in first of my long posts, I think this is extremely important, act now and contact you local politicians and make your point known and insist he/she will not get your vote if they support anti gun legislation.
"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!"

[Dave C]

Do you guys remember the images from the King riots where the Korean store owners were on the roof of their store with rifles?
I like that image:D
Did they ever burn that store???

[Tremor Therapy]

Originally posted by LOWRIVER2
I personally don't care what citizens own, I just can't stand people getting upset when I pull up to a shots fired call and pull out either my M16 or my Bennelli from my car, too many people think my cops should only carry hand guns and shotguns. They can all kiss my ass. The citizenry of South Central Los Angeles are well armed and I damn well will and do carry an arsenal to deal with the ones who choose to shoot at my peers. As happened last week, AK-47 ambush on two rookie officers, gun jammed after one round, first round entered engine block, detectives found 20 live rounds in a trail as the suspect ran and kept trying to clear the malfunction. Two officers were ambushed less than a block away the week earlier, six 9mm rounds into car, one richocheted off the officer's radio on his belt and passed through and through his uniform shirt without hitting him, very lucky.
I'm all for free will but to anyone who thinks cops should not carry rifles, go to hell, thankyou.
Amen brother! You have a job that I cannot comprehend. I'm all for you carrying the weapon you need to defuse the situation....I don't give a rats ass if it has to be a grenade launcher!
But like was previously stated, they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers! And I am a life-long, never miss an election, NRA member!

[MudPumper]

Originally posted by Dave C
Do you guys remember the images from the King riots where the Korean store owners were on the roof of their store with rifles?
I like that image:D
Did they ever burn that store???
That was some funny shit. Those stores never got ****ed with.