On 03/01/2010 4:00 PM, Harry wrote:
Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz
and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying
N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal
Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In
flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69
percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole
that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration
requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against
sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good
idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you
wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the
rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.
A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by the
gun manufacturers.
Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent regulations
to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or violent
people etc.


We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal
"instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check and
a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should also
apply to long guns, but it doesn't.

All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even someone
from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in
Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show
loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos like
Froggy.


That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun
Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws.


Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms
ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their
families.

I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in
the home were accidental.

Does that mean 59% protected life and property?

It probably means most of the rest were murders.

Come on give me some applause. Didn't you notice how quickly I figured
it out?

You didn't figure anything out, OK, you figured out how to be stupid.

With your attitude we should take away planes because they went into the
trade towers and killed more than 6000 people.

People kill people. Does not mater if it is a gun, auto, airplane,
knife, fishing line, bat, chain saw, drowning...

Hell, lets take away boats because I might run over you while swiming or
boating!

Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 3:46 PM, Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 2:30 PM, Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 03/01/2010 9:13 AM, Harry wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run
across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and
the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying
N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In
flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69
percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole
that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration
requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against
sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police
agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole
closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good
idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder
how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped
up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich
gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.
A reasonable person might assume that the NRA is owned & run by
the
gun manufacturers.
Any responsible gun owner shouldn't object to stringent
regulations
to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, unstable or
violent
people etc.


We have fairly stringent regs in Maryland. We have the federal
"instant check," of course, but we also have a state police check
and
a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. It should
also
apply to long guns, but it doesn't.

All this is made moot, though, by the fact that anyone, even
someone
from out of state, can buy rifles and pistols at gun shows in
Virginia without any checks, thanks to the so-called gun show
loophole. And anyone includes retards like JustHate and psychos
like
Froggy.


That is darn scary...... the whole USA should be under Federal Gun
Laws.... no cherry picking for the most lax laws.


Not likely to happen in a country where gun nutzis put their firearms
ahead of anything else in their lives, including the welfare of their
families.

I once read an article that 41% or so of the deaths from firearms in
the home were accidental.

Does that mean 59% protected life and property?

It probably means most of the rest were murders.

Who gives a damn if a house thief, rapist, murder maniac, child
molester, bar fighter, mafia, drug dealer/pusher, peeping toms, purse
snatchers or terrorist dies?

In fact, think of how much it saves society in legal and incarseration
costs and no repeat offenses? Maybe make it legal to shoot those in
the act of a violent and wilful crime!

Since most misuses of guns is criminal, and many are criminal killing
criminal, I want to know how many innocents get saved by having and
not having guns before supporting no guns. If not having guns for
honest people is because of drug killing drive by killing of a dope
dealer, wrong reason.

I will support removing guns from honest people when it can be
demonstraighted that guns are removed from those that would harm us,
which includes governemnt, mafia and common criminals. Taking guns
from honest good people is simply making them sheep for abuse.


If you have firearms, they probably should be removed from your
household. Your first two paragraphs indicate you are crazy. You have no
understanding of the rule of law, either.

Tell your wife, if you have one, you will stand by an do nothing while
she is raped then killed in her own home because you wouldn't load up
and cower behind the couch.

I go by a moral code you would not understand.


That's pretty funny. I have a fairly wide assortment of firearms in this
household, and I am a pretty good shot. I wouldn't hesitate to remove
the head from a home invader with my trusty 12-gauge. My wife can load,
aim, and shoot firearms reasonably well.

I'm sure you are correct in stating you have a moral code I would not
understand. I don't live down in the moral gutter as you do.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:


Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.

Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....

Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:


Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.

Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....

Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?

Give me your cite....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html

Read the article Gene.

Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a
left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was.

I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you
want to impune the veracity of his study.

Your religious zeal comes into full bloom when you're tested on this
subject so perhaps you should take a step back before your knee hits
the keyboard again.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:


Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.

Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....

Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?

Give me your cite....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html

Read the article Gene.

Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a
left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was.

I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you
want to impune the veracity of his study.


"impune"? There's a lonely, forlorn "g" floating around out there
somewhere in the melancholy land of misguided liberal rebuttals. And
it never hurts to take an extra "e" on the end of a word just for good
measure.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Gene wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:06 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:24:51 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:19:22 -0800, jps wrote:

Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a
stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the
scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle
Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A.
members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat
rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of
N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that
invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to
suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69
percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing
federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed,
favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea
to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how
reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by
propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun
lobby.

Posted by SusanG at Kos.
Gosh..... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" actually "discovered" a study
that proved their point....! OH! they commissioned the study!!!! Well
who did they hire? They hired:

http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise.html

Do they seek the truth in scientific accumulation and evaluation of
data (aren't they Fair and Balanced)? Oh, hell no.... What, then do
they do? They twist words and lie by deceptive innuendo....

"Remember, what matters is not what you say. Its what people hear."

Fooling people on questionnaires is a very old, very dishonest form of
lying....actually making other people lie without realizing it.... I'm
not sure what magically misleading terms these folks would use to
describe what they *REALLY* do, but I'm sure they'll say something you
can agree with, if you pay them enough.....

These guys are playing both sides of the conservative fence.... weekly
crap for FOX News and then "proving" that the NRA doesn't represent
gun owners....
Are you citing the study Frank Luntz did?
Give me your cite....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html

Read the article Gene.

Frank Luntz was paid to perform the services but he's by no means a
left wing stooge, which is what you'd claim if he was.

No, I'll take that opportunity, now. They are right wing nut cases
that will distort any study or wordsmith any statement to get the
desired result.... the result paid for. In this case they were paid to
be left wing stooges....

I suggest you look further into how he framed his questions if you
want to impune the veracity of his study.

I suggest you show me where to see this. Thus far, they have only
released the "results" and told us to watch for the study to come out
so we can see the results....... huh?

Your religious zeal comes into full bloom when you're tested on this
subject so perhaps you should take a step back before your knee hits
the keyboard again.

From your cite:
"Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee said in an interview that he and his
colleagues are trying to send a clear message to gun owners: "If you
have a gun you use for hunting or for self-defense in your home, I
don't want your gun.""

So.... all I have to tell you is that we have our guns for hunting or
self-defense and you'll stop posting this crap???? Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?






A. I wouldn't trust anything Luntz produces. He is the reigning whore of
pollsters.

B. The last pistol I bought cost me more than a grand, which is no more
than a moderate price for a non-22LR competition semi-auto. Sure shoots
sweet, though. :)

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?

Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof
(becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen
until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct
shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind...

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?

Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof
(becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen
until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct
shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet
shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a
distance away.

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?
Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a roof
(becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be seen
until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a direct
shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a bullet
shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill someone quite a
distance away.


Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the
earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen
a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right
on through.

I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries
resulting from bullets fired into the air.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:19:35 -0500, Harry wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:00:20 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...
Or did I not pay
enough for my gun? Or maybe some bullet fell through a roof somewhere
and we're off and running again (that's a really bizarre story). Or?
Yeah, the mythbusters did a whole thing on it. They found it to be a
myth but admitted they had interviewed doctors in the middle east who
say they have cases of falling bullets killing people.

I have to wonder how a bullet falling so slow could come through a
roof (becoming distorted) and then enter a head so far as to not be
seen until an autopsy. I would believe a ricochet from inside, or a
direct shot during a disturbance more. Something fishy there in my
mind...

A falling bullet is one thing, there's not much power there, but a
bullet shot at something less than 45 degrees, could easily kill
someone quite a distance away.


Uh...I would dispute the "finding" that a bullet falling towards the
earth after being fired "straight up" has "not much power." I have seen
a falling bullet hit the roof of a metal storage building and go right
on through.

I'm sure there are legitimate reports of deaths and serious injuries
resulting from bullets fired into the air.

I'm sure there are. I should clarify, *relatively* not much power. The
Army did a study on .30 caliber reaching terminal velocity. They figured
it to be @ 300 feet per second, with a force of @ 30 foot lbs. Being hit
by such, would definitely be an unpleasant experience, and could kill,
but compared to an M1 carbine with a muzzle velocity of 1,970 ft/s. I'll
take my chances with a bullet falling straight down.