.

Friends & Supporters I Need Your Opinion

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
Guys, I have long believed that if you are fighting a difficult problem, if you attack that problem in the right way you can destroy it. For example, huge building are professionally demolished by placing a relatively few explosive charges on key supports. Then you have the example of a relatively small and harmless primer igniting the powder in the cartridge and causing a bullet to travel thhousands of feet and hitting the target with tremendous and deadly force. And I believe the smallest woman in the world can take down the largest man in the world with something as simple as a 16" metal baton if she hits the man in the right place. And small drops of water dripping on limestone time and time again can create huge caves. So withh that in mind I have always thought that we pro-gun, pro-constitutional rights people could seriously wound our opponents with minimal effort if we careful choose our target. And my favorite target would be the shameless and extreme hypocrisy of our opponents. Here is one example of such hypocrisy.

Hinckley, the man who shot Pres. Regan and James Brady, was granted the right for an unsupervised Christmas visit to his parents by a judge. Now this man went to a lot of time and effort to try and kill Pres. Regan. Such as doing a lot of traveling to be at the right time and place, getting the gun and explosive bullets (which I think didn't work), etc. etc. He has proven that he was and probably still could be a dangerous, violent criminal. Yet I have not heard of a single objection to letting Hinckley out of prison (or maybe it is the mental institution) for an unsupervised visit. What is to stop this man from trying to shoot someone else using a gun, bow and arrow, cross bow, or to harm someone using a gasoline bomb, or knife or sword, or just dropping a brick off a freeway. I mean the man has a track record of trying to kill someone and at the same time having no concern for innocent bystanders that he might, and did, harm. But not a word of objection from James or Sara Brady, or Handgun Control Inc., or Josh Sugermann, or Hillery or Billery Clinton, or any of the anti-gun groups, etc., etc. But here is where the hypocrisy comes into the story.

All the people and groups I have mentioned work daily trying to elimanate gun rights for people like us WHO HAVE NO HISTORY OF ANY VIOLENT BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ANYONE! Isn't that just a l-i-tt-le bit twisted thinking on their part and someone needs to slap them in the face with it. But how?

When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.

Comments

  • 3gunner3gunner Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I certainly see your point and agree. But remember one thing, Hinkley was arrested, given a speedy and fair(?) trial, and was found not guilty. Not guilty by insanity of course, but still a not guilty verdict. If you or I were found not guilty of an offense we were arrested for then we would not expect to suffer any repercussions from that. From what I understand his insanity incarceration can be adjusted as the doctors see improvement. Maybe this would be a partial reason why we have not heard much out of the Brady Bunch. Personally, I think Hinkley beat the system, or should I say our justice system allowed itself to be beat. Definitely some room there for major improvements. This insanity defense thing has gotten to be outrageous for the most part.

    Another thought, if it turned up now that Jodie Foster was impressed by Hinkley's action and they started a thing together, would he then be guilty. Inquiring minds want to know.

    "Have a gun that works every time. All skill is in vein when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    3gunner; thanks for the reminder that he did get found not guilty by reason of insanitity. But don't forget that his parents are connected and wealthy and I don't thinnk a middleclass person such as myself would have got off so lucky.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • 3gunner3gunner Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nor would a lower class person such as myself. But don't tell my wife, she thinks we're middleclass.[;)]

    You know, in a way, if Mrs. Brady bacame very vocal and upset about Hinkley's temporary release, it would almost be like she is admiting that it's bad people with guns that hurt others. Not just guns alone.
    If she has no problem with the release of a man that shot her husband then she has no ground to object to a law abiding citizen having a firearm. If that makes any sense.





    "Have a gun that works every time. All skill is in vein when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    well fox, i love th theory, but as yet, my limited mental abilities have not come up with any brilliant, fool proof schemes, to bring them down. So until that happens Ill just keep trying to do what I always do. Sorry.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Fox,Like jpwolf I've been running this one round and round. Have'nt made it outa the circle yet.......
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    thanks for comments guys. 3gunner: your logic does make sense and I hadn't thought of it quite that way. It does give a litte different spin on the situation.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • SkyWatcherSkyWatcher Member Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:You know, in a way, if Mrs. Brady bacame very vocal and upset about Hinkley's temporary release, it would almost be like she is admiting that it's bad people with guns that hurt others. Not just guns alone.

    There's your reason.

    To whom much is given, much is expected.
  • Ruger22Ruger22 Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There is no compromise on the 2nd ammendment. It is what separates us from tyrrancial regimes and socialist drones overseas. This country's founding was inspired through Providence. I firmly believe that. Those who would compromise on the 2nd ammendment are traitors to our Republic and the Constitution and should be treated accordingly.
    When the country is threatened by gradual dissarmament through a UN orchestrated plan for passification and world control, the only people who will be left standing are those who understand the above paragraph, those who don't, will be enslaved.
    The world's profile has not changed, There are diseased and psychopathic individuals who crave power and control like a drug. They will stop at nothing to enslave us. Just look at the gradual and consistant dissarmament going on in Europe and South America. This is the last bastion of freedom remaining. I am honored to live here and am honored to live in the free state of Florida, where common sense still prevails., although I don't know for how long.


    Brian Ostro.
    I am committed to the sovereignty of our great Republic and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour
    member: NRA, John Birch Society, American Numismatic Association.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I like your "targeted attacks" idea. I already am doing stuff like this. For example I find that TV networks are anti gun. I used to watch a show on Fox called "Tru Calling" which is about a young medical student who works at a morgue and gets requests from dead people to have her save them; she then goes back to the day they died and has to prevent their death... But back to the point.

    I really liked the show until it started showing anti gun thoughts. For example any time a character is carrying a gun, Tru can correctly predict that that will be used in a murder or suicide. The show came very close to having a character (illegally) purchase a handgun for the protection of another character, but the character insisted she didn't want it, citing the untrue fact that it is more likely to be used to kill her than protect her.

    I vowed to stop watching the show. I emailed Fox and let them know that they lost one of their fans. I let them know the reason, and I told them I'd never waste my hard earned money going to see a Fox movie. If I see a movie my money goes to the anti gun crowd and back to the anti gun politicians.

    But what I think did the most damage was when I said that I'd boycott anybody who advertised on the show or on the channel.

    Also, the TV stations/movies are losing money because of the white men ages 18-25 (that's me!!). This has been shown time and time again. We politically incorrect white men are getting sick and tired of media sources which only aim at the PC groups and take us for granted. The movie Gigli lost millions of dollars. The cat in the hat still has to make back $40 Million to make up for what it cost (I don't think it'll happen)!! Fox cancelled its show Skin because no young white men were watching. I think it's NBC who cancelled "The Lyon's Den" because nobody was watching, etc. They are losing money, and in order to get it back they have to suck up to the white men, the only politically incorrect group in existance!

    Don't obsess about Sara Brady/Dianne Swinestein. Their time is more or less up. When I turn 21 I plan to register a machine gun shoot it as often as I can, and admit to the world that I will not surrender. I also told the networks (NBC) that the "Assault Weapons Ban" that they so supported will expire this year, but even when it does, they have permanently lost me as a fan.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    ruger22 & dsmith: well thought out comments. Thanks.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I agree,well thought out.......dsmith,This principle will work much better with numbers,I realize that it is working-to a degree,but it will not fix itself.Older folks like me remember when coffee prices went thru the roof and the country boycotted it.The price fell so fast you about HEAR it hit!Also when beef went up,everyone switched to chicken,pork,horse or whatever.Again the effect was dramatic and quick.The problem is getting a self-centered bunch of sheeple to go without....I just don't see them doing it....But it would work if the did!
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here's a list of people/companies to boycott:

    http://www.gunowners.org/fs0302.htm

    We all know actors are generally anti-gun. I stopped going to see movies. If I must see one I download it from the internet. But pay attention to other names on the list. Ben & Jerry's. Sara Lee. I will not buy Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream from the grocery store if I see it. I no longer buy Sara Lee Lunch Meat, etc. There are a lot of other brands associated with Sara Lee listed on www.saralee.com. For example Hanes. If we could get more NRA/GOA members to boycott, we'd in good shape (just make sure they sent letters/emails explaining why they are boycotting).

    Another one worth mentioning: AOL Time Warner. Their networks like CNN were very influential in getting the assault weapons ban passed. They showed a cop shooting a cinder block with a full auto AK-47. The block was destroyed. Then they showed the civilian version that would be allowed under the Klinton/Swinestein Akt. When the cop shot at the cinder block with the "civilian" version the cinder block did not get destroyed. It was later admitted that the cop was not shooting at the cinder block with the civilian gun. This is an outright lie. They helped pass the law, so I will no longer support any of the companies involved in the merger. I won't use AOL internet service (they are notorious for keeping logs of your internet activity for long periods of time anyway), I won't buy an issue of Time magazine even if it does contain some interesting stories, and most importantly, I won't waste money on a Warner Bros. movie.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I agree with boycotts and respect those who do the boycotting out of principle. My 21 year old daughter refuses to eat at McDonalds because she feels they are anti-gun and I agree. But I feel just quietly refusing to do business with a particular company may not get us the attention we are trying for. When I was in real estate I coined a saying in dealing with the homeowners with whom I had their houses listed for sale. To better show them I was working hard on selling their house, when I decided to do a particular thing for them (special ad, big open house, etc) I would "tell them what I was going to do" then I would "tell them as I did it" and then I would "tell them that I DID do it". In that way I got a lot of honest mileage out of one simple act. I wish we could find a way to do something like that to the companies we are boycotting.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    TR, please advise about McDonald's: How are they anti-gun? The GOA's website didn't list McDonalds or Coca-Cola (their owner) of being anti-gun.
Sign In or Register to comment.