I "appropriated" most of this from here. (John Hawkins|Posted: Oct 07, 2017 12:01 AM)
I did rewrite portions to make it my own which I suggest everyone do if you use it. I sent it to my elected reps. I hope others use it as a template for their own message. We need to get our voices heard!
________
buyback defined
noun
the buying of something that one previously sold.
Since those millions of guns WEREN'T BOUGHT from the government, you don't have a buyback, you have confiscation. Care to read the US constitution & Bill of Rights?

Dan
________

Every time some terrorist, wacko or radical kills people, liberals always want to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it. Their unconstitutional goal is complete gun confiscation, something which would likely lead to mass violence against the people carrying it out along with the prominent people and government officials advocating it. The Founding Fathers understood that if the American people were ever disarmed, it would only be a matter of time until the guns of a fascistic government were pointed at the people. So wise Americans understand that an attempt at widespread gun confiscation in the United States may very well lead to large numbers of freedom loving civilians, cops and military members taking up arms to insure that we continue to live in a Constitutional Republic. Liberals would do well not to forget that.

Setting aside the bloodbath that policy would likely lead to, it still wouldn’t solve the problem. You can talk about the “success” of gun confiscation in Australia if you like, but it’s not a comparable situation. There are already large numbers of illegal guns in the United States and getting more firearms into the country isn’t going to be a big problem with our porous borders. You want to get rid of guns in the United States?

Well, you CAN’T. Calling for gun confiscation in the United States is widely unpopular but that hasn't stopped the liberals from admitting that’s what they want to do.

So what other gun control laws could liberals implement that would stop mass shootings?

None.

If you want to know why, take a look at some of the most prominent shootings in recent years starting with Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas.

Paddock killed 59 people with semi-automatic rifles, but he had no criminal record or known mental health issues and he passed a background check with ease. He did apparently use bump stocks on his guns to speed their rate of fire and even the NRA is on board with banning them. Would getting rid of bump stocks have stopped Paddock? No, but it MAY have reduced the body count. Keep in mind that bump stocks replicate a technique that can be learned with a belt-loop; so he may have been able to do the same thing without a bump stock given time, practice and motivation, all of which he seems to have had.

Then there’s Omar Mateen, the Pulse Nightclub shooter who gunned down 49 with a semi-automatic rifle. The Lone Wolf Jihadi bought his guns legally after passing a background check.

What about Dylann Roof? The notorious racist killer who killed black Americans at a South Carolina church? He did pass his background check, but it was because of an error by the FBI screener looking at his application. Unlike the first two names on this list, he did his killing with a semi-automatic pistol.

We also can’t forget Adam Lanza. Remember, the crazy kid who killed 26 at Sandy Hook? He murdered his own mother and took her guns. What law stops someone who is ready to kill his own mother?

Jared Lee Loughner was forced to leave college because campus officials feared for the safety of students around him, but he wasn’t convicted of a crime. Therefore, he passed a background check to buy the Glock he used to kill 6 people and shoot Gabrielle Giffords in the head.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan was caught talking to a radical, anti-American cleric, but our intelligence agencies just shrugged that off. Later, he passed a background check, bought a semi-automatic pistol and used it to murder people at Fort Hood.

James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist, but never spoke of any plans he had to hurt people, which would have legally required her to report it. Holmes passed a background check, bought weapons including a semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun and used his weapons to murder 12 people in an Aurora, Colorado theater.
We can go on and on with this, but the point is that there is no magic fix.

Want to reduce the size of high capacity magazines? Once you know your way around a gun, you can change out a magazine in less than 2 seconds. Furthermore, semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns have all been used in mass killings. Banning one class of guns isn’t going to stop it. Additionally, banning all classes of guns wouldn’t end mass killings either. In Europe, where there already are the gun control laws liberals would love to implement, there are still gun massacres. One hundred thirty people were killed in a mass shooting with automatic weapons in France in 2015. Even if every gun on the planet magically disappeared tomorrow, the mass killings wouldn’t go away. In fact, the largest mass murders on American soil were committed with airplanes (9/11) and bombs (Oklahoma City). That seems especially noteworthy given that Paddock also had ammonium nitrate that could have been used to make a bomb. In 2016 in France, a man even killed 84 people by plowing through crowds with a truck. What, are we going to ban vehicles next? Get serious.

Once someone’s mind is set on murder, there is no simple fix.

So, how do you find the people bent on murder? Most of the time you don’t. Predicting which “moderate Muslim” will be radicalized and become a lone wolf killer is impossible. Predicting which mentally ill person will actually go around the bend and kill people isn’t doable. Some might be better bets to become violent than others, but the vast majority of people with mental illnesses don’t hurt anyone.

Maybe getting God back in our schools, pushing Christian values and working on changing our “all attention is good attention” social-media-driven society might help, but I doubt liberals would be on board with any of those things.
Long story short, gun control isn’t the fix for mass murders. For those who want gun control so badly, move to the South Side of Chicago where it already exists and leave all of us law-abiding gun owners alone.

In short, 20,000 gun laws already on the books haven't stopped murders and never will. Criminals don't care! Punishing lawful gun owners with more worthless laws isn't the answer! Even IF a ban was in place, do you think the criminals are just going to turn theirs over? If so, I have a nuclear powered submarine for sale!
 
They aren’t gonna read all that.
They'll think their anti agenda is ok with everyone unless they receive opposing views/opinions. NOT speaking up is what they want. I intend to use the 1A for all it's worth and I hope others do as well. The squeaky wheel adage comes to mind..

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Dan

Did you mention that they propose to give you money that they already took from you in the first place for something that they never owned? o_O
Nope, I figured they'd have hard enough time slogging through the letter...:D
 

PiratePast40

Messages
3,066
Reactions
4,189
I don't disagree with anything in the letter but agree that they probably aren't going to read it all. Might be better to send smaller bites at a time. It will be more letters and emails but getting small points across multiple times may be, in my humble opinion, a better strategy. I agree 110% that if we say nothing, then we give them the ammunition to repeat what's in their echo chamber and rightly proclaim that there was no dissent or argument against their opinions. The only preemptive option is to intelligently vocalize our opposition to narrow minded narcassists that feel a need to stroke their own egos and proclaim that they "did something". Never mind that what they did has nothing to do with the issue, they only want to thump their chests to draw attention to themselves.


ETA - what kind of nuclear submarine are we talking about, fast attack or boomer? If an attack boat, Sturgeon (637) class or 688? BTW - 637 class was vastly superior as a spec op boat than 688.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,447
Reactions
3,146
......
ETA - what kind of nuclear submarine are we talking about, fast attack or boomer? If an attack boat, Sturgeon (637) class or 688? BTW - 637 class was vastly superior as a spec op boat than 688.



Found a deal for you on an aircraft carrier - a mere 1.2 million:

;)
 

coltemp

Messages
589
Reactions
547
Heck, 'I won't read it.

In general, if a post looks similar to a 'novella' I skip it...
Your loss then,
And thus you lose out on a great summary of why more laws don't and won't work.

To all those complaining. Sure its a bit long, could be shorten and combined but it gets the points across. I agree with the suggestion that breaking it up into several bits with one point each would be a better way to send it off.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors August 2-Day Show
Hillsboro, OR
Vancouver Gunshow
Ridgefield, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top