# Liberal Hollywierd and guns



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did any of you see Law and Order tonight? They did their best to blame violence on guns, and not people.

In the story of a child murdering his mothers killer they explain that the child is innocent because guns are a virus, and he was infected when he seen his mother killed.

These Hollywood (Hollyweird) liberals never give up. It was so crazy it was funny until you realize that some small minded uninformed people may not be able to distinguish between Hollywood make believe and reality.

In the story the gun as a virus was presented as a scientific study in which someone who seen guns used in a violent act was twice as likely to commit a violent crime with a gun because he had become infected. The make believe doctor in the story explained that gun violence in reality is a medical problem.

If any of you remember this has been presented by Handgun Control, or one of those like groups, as a serious hypothesis a couple years ago. Real doctors even got in on the act during the 1990's and made this same claim. It looks like Hollyweird is in hopes of leading or at least instigating the next attack.


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

My wife and I watched it and were appalled.

The logic that guns cause crime means that a pencil/keyboard cauzes misspelled words and that a spoon made Rosie O'Donnel fat!

Just another reason I try not to watch network TV.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Plainsman you bet they will call it a medical problem. Then the FDA can approve a drug to treat it and the drug companies can put another billion in their pockets!! Network TV, the FDA "food and drug admin" and the FTC "federal trade commissin" work hand in hand to make millions with lies reported as the truth. Ever wonder why heart burn is now called "acid reflux diesease" ??? HMMM :eyeroll:
Also never forget the most powerful weapon invented in the 20th century was not the A bomb it was TELEVISHON!!!!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Fairly easy fix... The entertainment industry is a for-profit industry looking for profit, plain and simple. If enough people cease watching the show or the network, such things will stop. This will be even more effective if it is followed by a call, email, or letter to the station manager explaining why you no longer watch their station.

I don't believe that the media has a mission to distort truth. I do believe that the media gives the public what the public wants because it is profitable to do so. Exercise your freedom to NOT partake of certain media, and it will do two things: 1) if enough people do it, such activities will cease because the activities will not be profitable, and 2) you won't be offended anymore.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> 1) if enough people do it, such activities will cease because the activities will not be profitable, and 2) you won't be offended anymore.


This is true but there is a third step. You must let the producers of the show know why you will no longer watch their program and notify the sponsors you will no longer purchase their products as long as they advertise on the show. If you don't hit them in their pocket books, nothing will change.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy and Gohon, I agree, but wouldn't it be nice to watch a show without the biased Hollywood social messages. Can they just entertain us? Many are not that smart, yet they think they need to educate us. I was surprised when I read the education level of these people who look down on us. Their arrogance knows no bounds. 
Remember Mash? That was a very good movie, and the tv show was good for a while, until Allen Alda thought he had to educate the great unwashed masses. I guess he thought it was his task in life to impart what he thought was his superior wisdom. You often hear these people say how much they care, but through humor this show ridiculed those who they socially disagreed with. Have they lost their ability to entertain?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Remember Dan Rather, CBS and "The Guns Of Autumn" ? It's been going on for a long time.


----------



## yellar (Nov 26, 2004)

saw it, stupid episode. That kid saw his mom shot, then developed the "virus" and shot the guy who killed his mom. well how come the cops were not the ones on the stand, they see a lot of violence and killing but they dont seem to catch the "virus" and go shoot people who do wrong. well i guess there is a few bad seeded cops. On the other hand there are criminals that should be shot right on the spot, but its not a "virus" just a case of vigilantism which is ok in some cases. quit blaming the guns aim towards the people shooting them with a stupid excuse. The dang defense attorneys and their "syndromes. Nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore, its always someone elses fault! :fiddle:


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Of course, violence will always stay with us. This is a part of human nature. However, guns in hands of wrong people make most deadly violence. This is why gun control is a must in every civilized society. It is coming and you cannot escape this. If you are just a hunter, you have no reason to worry. Guns are not for everyone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This is why gun control is a must in every civilized society


.

That is nearly word for word what Hitler said in 1937. That was before he sent millions of mostly defenseless Jews to the gas chamber. If we get full blown gun control here sevendogs is there any special group you would prefer to gas first?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I read that comment earlier, and decided to sit on it before replying in a tirade...

Exactly who should have guns then? Lets say we all agree that certain people shouldn't have guns, like the criminally insane. Who defines what the certain people are?

As it sits right now I think too many people are restricted. All ex-felons are barred from gun ownership. So lets say 20 yrs ago an 18 yr old was picked up with a few ounces of pot on his person. Instant felony. Is it fair a small mistake like that should deny him the right to defend himself?

How about controling of types of guns? I cant walk into the store and buy a full auto M-16. I dont think thats fair either. I dont misuse any of my other weapons, why then would the sudden ability to spend more money on ammo make me a criminal?

There is a lot more to be said about the subject, but long posts are often skimmed, so Im gonna stop here


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > This is why gun control is a must in every civilized society
> 
> 
> .
> ...


Well, even Hitler said something what was true! He was against smoking and he did not like homosexuals, which many of us share with him. What he did is a different matter.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

I would say not only certain persons... Certain guns should be banned. Why do you need an assault machine gun? All firearms, except single shot rifles and smooth barrel shotguns for hunters, should be banned. Majority of Americans wants gun control. It is eminent and it is coming. Overcrowding and guns make it inevitable. WIld West times are gone.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

sevendogs,
WOW! Have you been sharing the bong with Chuckie and Hillary?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

We need more of this 7puppies, it will ensure another victory in 08.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

sevendogs

You make me sick with your statements. How short sighted you are. Ban everything but single shot rifles and shotguns. I'll bet that is all you use and have, so that's ok for you. Those type would be banned in time also. So you agree with taking firearms away from law abiding citizens while criminals continue to get what they want and yes this will happen. Have you looked at statistics from other countries that have tried this? You are nothing but a sheep in wolves clothing. I knew you were a Bush hater, but am amazed that you also hate the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > This is why gun control is a must in every civilized society
> 
> 
> .
> ...


Plainsman! this might be the biggest spin of all time!! Hey, I don't agree with 7 dogs, but it seems pretty outrageous to connect his statement with Hitler. "Is there any special group you were prefer to gas first" C'mon!! It was mainly the republicans who fought tooth and nail for racial segregation years ago, right? Do we call the repubs nazis? Yikes!


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

sevendogs said:


> I would say not only certain persons... Certain guns should be banned. Why do you need an assault machine gun? All firearms, except single shot rifles and smooth barrel shotguns for hunters, should be banned. Majority of Americans wants gun control. It is eminent and it is coming. Overcrowding and guns make it inevitable. WIld West times are gone.


I'll take this one step further for you, to put things in perspective. Why do you NEED a single shot rifle and a smoothbore shotgun? Answer is you dont. You dont need to hunt. So by your definition alone, you dont need any guns. Email your address and I'll be happy to bring a torch over. Gun control should start somewhere, why not with someone who advocates it.

I'll tell you first and foremost, even though it sounds cliche these days, that you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers. I have a small selection of pistols, and above and beyond the rest, these are the most important. These guns protect me and my family. One even did a pretty good job of saving my life back in 2000. If we lived in a gun free society back then, I'd be dead. So for that and that alone, I can personally say guns are good and you're an idiot.

I also have a 5 shot deer rifle. IT was my grandfathers. Why do you suggest using a single shot only? The DC sniper used a rifle with the capability for a 90 round drum. He only needed one shot.

I have a small but growing collection of old WW2 military bolt actions. They arent really good for anything but the joy of shooting. Should these be takin as well? After all, they do remind us of our past.

The only gun I have you'd allow is a Mossy 500, and while it has killed the occasional rabbit for a nice pot of stew, I bought it for home defence, and that will always be its main purpose.

Americans dont want gun control, they want criminal control. Unfortunately liberal spin has confused the issue. People like you should be ashamed.

Hunters for gun control, sounds almost like Rapists against abortion doesnt it?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Gun Owner said:


> [Americans dont want gun control, they want criminal control. Unfortunately liberal spin has confused the issue. People like you should be ashamed.
> 
> Hunters for gun control, sounds almost like Rapists against abortion doesnt it?


I have to agree with you Gun Owner on the above quote.

The rest of this is for you left-winged nin-com-poops out there.

This is the main issue. If you look at the 5 main countries on the list that has banned gun's for civilians (and some of the law enforcement officials  ) the crime rate has risen in-regards to violent crimes.

We were killing each other with rocks and sticks a thousand years ago. We should ban having those too shouldn't we? How about cars and trucks? Vehicular homicide is on the rise in our nation. Should get rid of those too right?

Here's a novel idea for you left-wing liberals out there, (try to stay with me on this one ok?)

CONTROLL THE CRIMINALS AND THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS!!

Instead of you left-wing nut jobs crying for the "Equal rights of convicted criminals" and that they shouldn't be treated so bad in jail, or released because a cop used the wrong colored pen to fill out his report, GO AFTER THE CRIMINALS and when your capped crusade is done there then come talk to me about my guns.

But, no, you won't. You ultra left-wingers like to go after the right side, by-passing the issue, and go after your personal agenda's.

You left-wingers make me sick.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

SFC Rude wrote:


> This is the main issue. If you look at the 5 main countries on the list that has banned gun's for civilians (and some of the law enforcement officials  ) the crime rate has risen in-regards to violent crimes.


Is this true? Which countries? While I don't believe in gun control, I'm curious that this has happened in five main countries. If it is true and the statistics are sound, I'd say that the argument against Americans keeping their guns as they do today will never work.



> You left-wingers make me sick.


sorry.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Australia: (First Year after ban)
# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
#Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent

Britain: 
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

Canada:
Canada's reported violent-crime which is on the rise has a rate of 963 per 100,000 in 2003, a rate about twice the U.S.'s (which is 475), Canada's politicians are understandably nervous and are blaming guns brought in from the USA. Question has to be asked why is America's crime rate declining if it is the fault of the guns.

During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > This is why gun control is a must in every civilized society
> ...


Really??????????????? I found this information. Sorry about the cut and past. 
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler April 15th, 1935

The Nazi Weapons Law (or_Waffengesetz_) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938.

Hitler's Gun Control Act of 1938 was translated into American English and submitted to Congress as legislation and subsequently into law in the wake of the assasinations of Robert F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. 
Senator Thomas Dodd requested the tranlated the Nazi Germany document and submitted it as such, making changes to fit U.S. law. Senators Strom Thurman and Ted Kennedy were the other two significant driving forces behind this bill to become law.

Isn't it funny that Kennedy's name comes up again?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

yeesh, my point is that anyone advocating some form of gun control is not a nazi. I've seen concentration camps and this isn't something to bring up so lightly in my mind. This forum is getting out of hand.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Gohon said:


> Australia: (First Year after ban)
> # Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
> # Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
> # Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
> ...


Gohon, I hope this is all true. I'm very leery of stats without seeing how they did them, if the proper controls were used, definition used, etc. I had no idea that that violent crime was dropping in the U.S.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I believe in one form of Gun Contol :eyeroll:

Take a deep breath, let some of it out, hold it, sqeeze off the shot. :sniper:

Have a nice day................


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

Isn't it funny that in states where concealed-carry permits are easier to get, crime rates are pretty low. It wouldn't take much to get a permit in good ol' Nort Dakota and crime rates are pretty low. Not only are c-c permits attainable, but most homes here have multiple guns. In NYC, Washington D.C., and most other metropolitain areas guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are few and far between if any. Would you be more inclined to break into a home when your chances are the home owner was waiting with a 40 cal. S&W or 12 gauge shotgun?

sevendogs wrote


> I would say not only certain persons... Certain guns should be banned. Why do you need an assault machine gun?


Who the hell are you to tell me what I need and don't need!?!?! :******: :******: :withstupid:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I had no idea that that violent crime was dropping in the U.S.


Actually neither did I but I was aware the crime rate had dropped in the states which had the right to carry that I was most familiar with. What really surprised me more than anything was the high crime rate in Canada. Just never paid attention to that.

I do think you miss the point that Plainsman is making. It is not that anyone advocating gun control is a Nazi but the very first actions of Hitler upon becoming the leader of Germany was to disarm the populace. Ditto Stalin, Castro, Sadamm and all other dictators. If the people of the US is ever disarmed we will be completely at the mercy of whom ever controls the military. Nazi Germany is simply the Picasso painting of what could happen to those that are not vigilant.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

http://www.break.com/index/runfromcop.html

Heres a clip of what happens when you disarm your police force. These poor cops arent even allowed to carry tasers. Watch carefully as the camera briefly shows the assailaints buddy as he silently considers aiding his friend.

Now it is true that the officers managed to keep the situation under control, and it is a testament to the abilites of the officers shown, but you have to wonder how easy the situation could have gotten out of hand if the thugs in question hadnt been so timid.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass I was not taking it lightly. I take freedom and the second amendment very very serious. Gohon explained well my intent of my comments.

I was surprised mostly that any sportsmen would defend sevendogs position. I'm glad you are not. Unfortunately I think sevendogs is right about one thing. Total gun control will eventual become reality. When it does our grandchildren or perhaps a further lineage will not know the freedom we do today. I may not be able to stop it, but I will do everything I can to stall it as long as possible.


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

After reading this thread, my first reaction is,.... WOW!!!!

Hollyweird has been successful in brainwashing even some gun-owners (sevendogs). It is a sad state for the rest of us if even some gun-owners are believing the liberal gun grabbers...... uke:

I think Plainsman, SFC Rude and Gohon made some great points... we have TOOOOOO MUCH ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION on the books now!! WE NEED CRIMINAL CONTROL.

Here are some of mine and others' thoughts on GC from another thread.

http://nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtop ... highlight=


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Gohon;

You beat me to the list. Also add some provinces in Australia.

Anybody want facts and figures? Go to google.com and instead of typing in your normal search's like 'Dem's rule', 'PETA for Pres.', or your other left winged crap and search for FACTS. Ooohhh, ouch. A Democrate having to search for _facts_, that's going to hurt but try it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

SFC Rude said:


> Anybody want facts and figures? Go to google.com and instead of typing in your normal search's like 'Dem's rule', 'PETA for Pres.', or your other left winged crap and search for FACTS. Ooohhh, ouch. A Democrate having to search for _facts_, that's going to hurt but try it.


 :lol: Pretty funny actually!

Except that PETA for pres joke was too much! I think we all can agree about where they belong at least!


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Plainsman said:



> seabass I was not taking it lightly. I take freedom and the second amendment very very serious. Gohon explained well my intent of my comments.
> 
> I was surprised mostly that any sportsmen would defend sevendogs position. I'm glad you are not. Unfortunately I think sevendogs is right about one thing. Total gun control will eventual become reality. When it does our grandchildren or perhaps a further lineage will not know the freedom we do today. I may not be able to stop it, but I will do everything I can to stall it as long as possible.


The day that happens is the day I grab my guns and all those people who see things our way and start my own country!! :******:


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

For those of you that took me as serious, don't. I was joking on some of it!


----------

