Icanhazcheezburger as an activism tool.

[JImbothefiveth]

I started a thread about convincing people in urban areas, if anyone wants to discuss this there.

the argument can EASILY be made that a simple handgun or shotgun is plenty for a home defense situation.

A shotgun might be too much recoil for a senior citizen, and handguns are hard to aim accurately.

and a hard lining conservative isn't *likely* to invite them to the range sometime.

Better?

No, I'm very conservative, and I've taught (very) liberals to shoot.

law-abiding citizens in urban areas already have such a negative view toward firearms (because the only time they see a firearm is either on a gangster or a policeman [which, sometimes can be one in the same], both of whom they probably resent), that they don't even want to hear it. And you have to ask yourself if you would think the same way if you lived their life.

First of all, why would a law abiding citizen resent non-corrupt policemen?

they don't even want to hear it

I think we should point out that they would be far better able to defend themselves from crime if they had a gun. Maybe they just never considered it, and this would give them a new view on the subject.

it makes little sense for you to own such a firearm for recreational purposes in that area

Really? There is probably a range somewhere in the city, and although you can't hunt in the city, you can always go outside the city.

 

[nrgetik]

Where?

Edit:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418363

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Where?

To hunt, you could go to public hunting land. To target shoot, it depends on the city. There are a number of ranges in Indiana, off the top of my head I can name Don's guns. (Although I hear he over-charges on the guns themselves.)

 

[nrgetik]

I was talking about where the thread was located, because you didn't say it was in the parent forum of this forum when you said you had created another thread.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Sorry about that. Here's the thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418363

 

[nrgetik]

No problem, I posted my reply to your last one in this thread over at the other thread.

 

[Geneseo1911]

 

[jackdanson]

TLDR... darn I came in here hoping for funny pics... only a few gems in the midst of the craziness...

bah, didn't want to get involved but

First of all, why would a law abiding citizen resent non-corrupt policemen?

You don't work with many low-income minorities do you? Rational or no they fear the police. I work with guys that are salt of the earth, would never hurt a fly, but they are terrified of the police.. you can try to talk them out of it, but it is so culturally ingrained in them that they won't bite. Would you trust an establishment that openly worked to opress your people up until 35 or so years ago?

That should be all the more reason to them to pre pro2a, but for some reason it isn't.

 

[toivo]

Well I mean, that's all fine and good toivo but ultimately I don't know if what you're telling me about these groups is true or not. Where exactly are you getting this information? Was it from any of the major news corporations, or one of their many small subsidiaries? Because I would immediately question the accuracy of anything of that nature.

I'm just taking public figures at their word. Tom Gresham reports this:

"When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either."

<http://www.guntalk.com/site.php?pageID=15&newsID=12>

Rosie O'Donnell, who has been active with the HCI, said the following:

"Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

<http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/1999/220499.html>

Then there was the infamous Dianne Feinstein quote:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

<60 Minutes, CBS-TV, 2/5/95>

In all fairness, Feinstein was talking only about "assault weapons," specifically the grandfathering compromise in the 1994 ban.

I think the intention is clear.

 

[Geno]

Take my guns. Take your guns. Take the police guns. Take the military guns. Of course, no foreign forces would invade us. Wow, I could add a statement here, but am far too gentlemanly.

 

[nrgetik]

Toivo: you can pretty much ignore Rosie O'Donnell, at the end of the day she's just a moron trying to get viewers, she has no real pull or influence. It isn't like the viewership of her program is significant.

The others...well, you're absolutely right, but as long as you've got at least 1 person speaking out FOR gun rights per every ******* speaking out against them, then there's no real threat. Ideally you need to have multiple people speaking out for gun rights per every one speaking against, and the way to do that is to know the opposition

 

[bang_bang]

They can come and get mine. But they're gonna have one hell of a time picking up all my brass.

 

[brisendines]

I found a great site with gun advocate posters, slogans, and just pretty pictures.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/?g2_page=1

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

That's a pretty sweet website you found there, bresindines; thanks!