TexasCHLforum.com

It seems as if we are playing an endless game of “whack a mole” with the gun control nuts.

I know I will never see it before I die but I would love to see the gun owners of this country stand up and put the liberals, Bloomberg, the government and the U.N. on notice that you will not get my guns. No matter how many laws you pass, I will not register my guns in any way and you will not take them without violence.

I would like to see a demonstration in Washington like the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s to show these fools we are dead serious and not just playing politics. That may chill them for a while, but like I said I will never see it before I die.

VoiceofReason wrote:It seems as if we are playing an endless game of “whack a mole” with the gun control nuts.

I know I will never see it before I die but I would love to see the gun owners of this country stand up and put the liberals, Bloomberg, the government and the U.N. on notice that you will not get my guns. No matter how many laws you pass, I will not register my guns in any way and you will not take them without violence.

I would like to see a demonstration in Washington like the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s to show these fools we are dead serious and not just playing politics. That may chill them for a while, but like I said I will never see it before I die.

I'm not sure whether to think that you are an optimist or a pessimist.

anygunanywhere wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:It seems as if we are playing an endless game of “whack a mole” with the gun control nuts.

I know I will never see it before I die but I would love to see the gun owners of this country stand up and put the liberals, Bloomberg, the government and the U.N. on notice that you will not get my guns. No matter how many laws you pass, I will not register my guns in any way and you will not take them without violence.

I would like to see a demonstration in Washington like the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s to show these fools we are dead serious and not just playing politics. That may chill them for a while, but like I said I will never see it before I die.

I'm not sure whether to think that you are an optimist or a pessimist.

I'm 67. Reread with that factored in.

VoiceofReason wrote:It seems as if we are playing an endless game of “whack a mole” with the gun control nuts.

I know I will never see it before I die but I would love to see the gun owners of this country stand up and put the liberals, Bloomberg, the government and the U.N. on notice that you will not get my guns. No matter how many laws you pass, I will not register my guns in any way and you will not take them without violence.

I would like to see a demonstration in Washington like the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s to show these fools we are dead serious and not just playing politics. That may chill them for a while, but like I said I will never see it before I die.

We may be witnessing a silent demonstration in CT right now. That State has already taken the registration and the making-the-owners-criminals steps toward confiscation. It remains to be seen who will blink first. The longer the standoff lasts, the greater the apparent tilt toward the gun owners but at any moment on any day, it could erupt with a zealous attempt at enforcement.

sbrawley wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:There's some darn scary stuff in there:

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I don't believe gun owners have rights." Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

Own a gun = loss of rights.

Wow.

What do they want? A "Minority Report" society?

Uhhh, yep. Pretty much that's what they want.

chasfm11 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:It seems as if we are playing an endless game of “whack a mole” with the gun control nuts.

I know I will never see it before I die but I would love to see the gun owners of this country stand up and put the liberals, Bloomberg, the government and the U.N. on notice that you will not get my guns. No matter how many laws you pass, I will not register my guns in any way and you will not take them without violence.

I would like to see a demonstration in Washington like the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s to show these fools we are dead serious and not just playing politics. That may chill them for a while, but like I said I will never see it before I die.

We may be witnessing a silent demonstration in CT right now. That State has already taken the registration and the making-the-owners-criminals steps toward confiscation. It remains to be seen who will blink first. The longer the standoff lasts, the greater the apparent tilt toward the gun owners but at any moment on any day, it could erupt with a zealous attempt at enforcement.

Yeah, events in Connecticut (or rather the lack thereof) is a fascinating thing. Commies pass a law demanding that people register their guns and surrender some of them. The deadline is long past for both requirements, and nobody is complying. So it remains for the state to FORCE compliance, and the truth is, they are AFRAID of doing so or they would have done it already. I predict a political shift to the right in Connecticut over the next 6-8 years.

Jaguar wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Amendment

Nope, they don't want to ban guns.

I have zero objection to quotes like this - in context - with full meaning, which came from your reference:

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amendment the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This guy... He's a columnist, not a politician, who wrote that stuff in his editorial, which can be referenced: http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinio ... /19426029/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a guy who wants to ban all guns. It's an extreme view, but it's presented correctly, in the appropriate context. No objection to quoting this sort of madness quite correctly. Course, some people might recognize that it's a divisive opinion and might really be about making a name for himself or internet popularity - I'd have to research what else he's written.

I object to the out-of-context quotes that significantly broaden the meaning of statements and use them in a manner to influence the sheep who won't bother to fact check... I guess I object that half-truths are so effective.

There's a great example here: viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75111&start=90" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Of a pro-gun group (OCTC) doing even worse - they don't even bother to quote someone out of context, they just make up a fictional point of view... And some of us buy it... For reference, here's what they posted:
http://tinyurl.com/oyy28nb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I don't like that stuff. It just means that you can't trust *any* group with a political agenda. That includes our side.

anygunanywhere wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: They mean what they say.

I agree that they mean what they say, but the context is very important... Perhaps more important than a single sentence. That goes for anything that you're going to quote.
None of these people get kudos for being pro-2nd amendment, but none of them are actively seeking to ban all firearm ownership openly.. We can all guess what's going on behind the scenes, but none of these cases were calls to take all firearms from all persons.

If you think that wanting to ban AR-15s during a period of political pressure - or heck any period - is the same as wanting to confiscate all guns, then we'll have to disagree... We could agree that it's bad.. We could agree that it's a first step toward something more substantial, but I can't call it what it isn't.

I take people at their word. Their word is enough context for me. I don't need amplification, explanation, or clarification.

Context is very clear in all the quotes I read.

cb1000rider wrote:

Jaguar wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Amendment

Nope, they don't want to ban guns.

I have zero objection to quotes like this - in context - with full meaning, which came from your reference:

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amendment the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This guy... He's a columnist, not a politician, who wrote that stuff in his editorial, which can be referenced: http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinio ... /19426029/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a guy who wants to ban all guns. It's an extreme view, but it's presented correctly, in the appropriate context. No objection to quoting this sort of madness quite correctly. Course, some people might recognize that it's a divisive opinion and might really be about making a name for himself or internet popularity - I'd have to research what else he's written.

I object to the out-of-context quotes that significantly broaden the meaning of statements and use them in a manner to influence the sheep who won't bother to fact check... I guess I object that half-truths are so effective.

There's a great example here: viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75111&start=90" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Of a pro-gun group (OCTC) doing even worse - they don't even bother to quote someone out of context, they just make up a fictional point of view... And some of us buy it... For reference, here's what they posted:
http://tinyurl.com/oyy28nb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I don't like that stuff. It just means that you can't trust *any* group with a political agenda. That includes our side.

Would still like to see some of those "extreme pro gun" quotes you were talking about.....not by a columnist, or a private individual, but by an elected representative or government official.

Andy,
I wasn't asking for you to spoon feed me the context or fact check for me. I was in the process of checking a few myself when I found what I found.... I AM suggesting if someone is going to promote this sort of thing, that you the quotes used shouldn't be taken out of context. It seems to me that removing the context on these significantly expands the scope of the statement. Just comes off as disingenuous.

But hey, it works, right? You're right, people should check... But people don't. And that includes people on this forum.

I do understand fellow forum members indications (above) that even in context, the point of view is unappreciated. IE even if the context was a much more limited weapons ban, they consider it to be the same thing. I consider them to be very different things... As a politician that wants to remove the 2nd amendment probably wouldn't be a politician for very long. I have no defense of any of the referenced politicians, other than to say what is implied isn't what was being said...

cb1000rider wrote:To be fair here, we could probably find some examples of some pretty extreme pro-gun views in the last 14 years or so.. Some of these quotes go back to 2001... Perhaps earlier.

How many of you take one sentence quotes, completely out of context, and form an opinion on them? Because that's what this article has quite successfully done... To me, this is nothing but a testament to how well misinformation spreads.. Because this thing has been passed around for over a decade, which a surprising lack of any amount of critical thinking attached....

The problem with this POV is that the "extreme" gun rights quotes don't flow from the mouths of legislatures; people that have power enough to make a grab. Nancy Pelosi has made numerous statements expressing a desire to completely disarm the fiefdom, "Assault" weapons notwithstanding.

With a good number of these "out of context" quotes, adding the context back in only makes them more disturbing.

AndyC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I do understand fellow forum members indications (above) that even in context, the point of view is unappreciated. IE even if the context was a much more limited weapons ban, they consider it to be the same thing. I consider them to be very different things...

I don't.

Someone who wants to take my rifle will be the same person who'll happily take my pistol next time around. I don't believe they'll ever be appeased, so I couldn't care less if he "only" wants to take "just" this or that.

Me either. Nobody is taking any of my firearms until I'm out of ammunition or dead.