# media malpractice and Sarah Palin



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Just and update for those who may still cling to their unsubstantiated views of Sarah Palin.



> Video Exclusive: A Revealing Morning With Sarah Palinby John Ziegler
> If someone told me five months ago that in early January I would pay over $1,400 for an incredibly inconvenient plane ticket and $120 for a 3 a.m. cab fare to get from sunny Los Angeles to Wasilla, Alaska, I would have told them there was a better chance the Dow Jones would be below 9,000 and a gallon of gas less than two dollars.
> 
> If they would have told me I'd be glad to have made the journey (even with a seven-hour, weather-aided stop in Seattle), I would have told them Sarah Palin had a better chance to be John McCain's running-mate. Of course, as we all now know this turned out to be true. And even though I still have the flu I got just before the trip, I'm thrilled to have experienced minus-eleven degrees in Alaska.
> ...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

:rollin: :fiddle:

riiiggghhhhttttt. She is the real deal alright. :lol: You betcha!

Keep up the delusions.

We have seen your record Sarah. That is why we all laughed (and still continue to this day to laugh).






"Ya know a grizzly rises up in me... "

If this is the start of her 2012 campaign (which is what it feels like), she's clearly trolling for the support of the type of righter-than-right fundamentalist delusionalists (including some here) who'll believe the 1,001 deal-breakers in the Palin candidacy (including but not limited to home-state political corruption, meddling in police investigations, an obstinate failure to prepare herself for the campaign trail, and a gross lack of experience) were concocted wholly by the vast left-wing media conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

:thumb:

Democrats are salivating at the prospect of seeing her at the top of the ticket in 2012. If you thought this last election was a HUGE landslide (which it was by any measure of the electoral vote count), wait until 2012 and add another 15 electoral votes.

:lol:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Ryan, are you both blind and deaf? Or have your newly acquired west coast liberal views clouded your reasoning. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Blind and deaf? Not really.

I don't believe anyone could support her given all the hypocrisy she, her family and her record have brought to the Republican party.

If anyone seriously believes what she has to say matters, they are delusional.

I won't go off on another long diatribe about her long laundry list of incompetencies again. I've mentioned them numerous times on here.

She is a complete and utter fool of the highest magnitude. When you have Republican bloggers, news folks, politicians and party members running away from her and her message that should have been a huge clue. She was a total train wreck.

You know as well as I do that she was kept completely under wraps and not allowed to speak during the election race. They were afraid of exposing that lie.

Thankfully she'll only be a footnote in history.

Lest we continued being the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

R y a n said:


> We have seen your record Sarah.


 You right we go on a person's past record to elect them. Oh no, that's right, Obama has no record. Other than being from the nice clean Chicago Political Machine. I don't care who runs against Obama 4 years from now. They should win most handily. I don't care how good Obama claims to be. He is not going to get us out of this spiral in 4 years. The people who elected him are expecting milk and honey on the 21st. It ain't gonna happen. I don't envy him his job but he chose it. He has been back pedaling since he was elected. Change? Yeah right! And we are incredibly screwed on the Foreign affairs issues. Everyone was focused on the economy. Well look at the world today and it's only going to get worse. I think Palin, this day, would be a better choice than Obama. I think we, as Americans, are in a heap of trouble. God, I hope I'm wrong and I am not hoping he will fail. I will support him as my president. But I truly think he will do more bad than good. (It's nice to see you back. You always present a great counter point.)


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Yes Ryan, and your messiah is sooo much more experienced. I know he's not in office yet, but I'm kinda wondering about all this change he promised. I mean really, his team looks alot like Clinton's team, oh yeah, that's cause most of them were.

Yep, change. uke:

huntin1


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

I heart Sarah Palin 

Ryan finally gets some life going on the Politics forum again. :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jgat said:


> I heart Sarah Palin
> 
> Ryan finally gets some life going on the Politics forum again. :beer:


I am not so sure that everyone wants to see me posting here. Some like it when they have the floor all to themselves 

I heart Sarah Palin only in the sense that it provides me much fodder for humor and ample opportunity for me to ridicule her shortcomings.

You know I thought this post was about _her?_ I wasn't sure after it got sidetracked and turned into an opportunity to bash Obama.

I never said he was "my Messiah" That was a label started here by some others who had to find any way they can to bash Obama.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hello Ryan. Are you still going to assure us that Obama isn't going to touch our guns ---- again. It was you that said since the Super Duper Court upheld the second amendment as an individual right that we didn't need to worry anymore. That might not be the exact words, but it's completely correct. So are you still holding to that. You should, I'll bet since your still drinking the hate Sarah Palin cool aid. 

When are we going to hear from the left that the assault weapon ban is just common sense gun control? I doubt we will see that screwed up of an opinion on a site like this, but when do you think some liberals will take that turn.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bgunit68 said:


> I don't care who runs against Obama 4 years from now. They should win most handily.
> 
> I don't care how good Obama claims to be.


Care to wager a friendly bet on that Mark? 



Bgunit68 said:


> He is not going to get us out of this spiral in 4 years.


No he is not. Noone believes that. Even those who elected him realize the legacy that Bush has put us under. Everyone realizes it was the previous 8 years of catastrophe from him, combined with the undermining of the markets and banks due to corruption that got us in this mess.

That is precisely why he will have 2 terms/8 years to finish what he has started. 59 Senate seats will go a long ways to ensuring the economy gets better quicker, and minimizing the political infighting that helps the politicians and hurts the average American via the slower recovering economy as a whole.



Bgunit68 said:


> The people who elected him are expecting milk and honey on the 21st. It ain't gonna happen. I don't envy him his job but he chose it. He has been back pedaling since he was elected. Change? Yeah right!


Noone is expecting milk and honey. Everyone realizes what has happened. Even though the Republicans wish they had Democrats to blame it on, unfortunately they don't. Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and we have folks making claims that he isn't fixing the mess (or finished fixing it) yet. Huh? :huh:



Bgunit68 said:


> And we are incredibly screwed on the Foreign affairs issues. Everyone was focused on the economy. Well look at the world today and it's only going to get worse.


No everyone wasn't focused on the economy. Bush started wars on 2 different fronts in 8 years. He ruined our foreign relationships with every country in the world save Britain and Israel. It is worse because of his administration and their policies, and their outright dismissal of international law and complying with foreign treaties/conventions.



Bgunit68 said:


> I think Palin, this day, would be a better choice than Obama. I think we, as Americans, are in a heap of trouble. God, I hope I'm wrong and I am not hoping he will fail. I will support him as my president. But I truly think he will do more bad than good.


Palin would be a trainwreck of the highest magnitude. Right now we have countries all over the world openly and visibly excited to work with a new administration.

Picking Palin would have sent a signal of another 8 years of the same administration holding the same foreign affairs offices. She has zero foreign policy experience. Therefore she would have had to rely on brains and eloquence in addition to establishing a strong foreign team. Right now there is no such thing for the Republican party. The world over hates the Republican administration. They would have no trust in them, as only switching a figurehead of the party, and not removing the party's influence would have sent a message of "NO change" to the rest of the world.

The fact that Obama has chosen the experienced team that he has, has sent a signal to the rest of the world of his intentions. First and foremost it has sent a message of cleaning house, which is what he has done.

Secondly based on his early comments, he has opened the door to new ideas and new ways of doing things. This has sent a message of hope for change to the rest of the world too....

Thirdly he has sent a message of caution to the rest of the world who thinks they might have gained some advantage or sensed a weakness from America. He has stated he will be sending troops further into Afghanistan and stepping up our presence there.

Fourthly he has sent a message to the Arab world that he does not intend to continue occupying Iraq and has shown clear intentions of moving Americans out as quickly as prudently possible. That further discourages militants trying to convince their minions that the American infidels want to occupy Arab soil. Without the ability to spread that propoganda, it hurts terrorists recruiting efforts.

Obama has been masterful in who he has chosen on almost every pick except for his CIA chief with Panetta. Not sure why he did that. That was incredibly stupid, and there must be some reason that I/we are not aware of. Yet.



Bgunit68 said:


> (It's nice to see you back. You always present a great counter point.)


Thanks Mark. I appreciate it. Don't know how much I'll post. I get tired of the usual ridiculous line of logic that passes as commentary here.

Hence why the long laundry list of moderate/more liberal folks here slowly fade away over time as they too get tired of punching a brick wall.

But I'll occasionally pipe up more often now and then. I lurk on every forum more than most realize. I visit several times a day to keep track of the site.

peace.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

R y a n said:


> jgat said:
> 
> 
> > I heart Sarah Palin
> ...


You are right, I apologize to plainsman for sidetracking and asking when we would see the change Lord Barrack promised.

One thing that puzzles me. You whine about me sidetracking and picking on your hero, yet you can do whatever you want in a thread. Happened all the time before the election.

Curious, I guess super mods can do whatever they want. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I am not so sure that everyone wants to see me posting here. Some like it when they have the floor all to themselves


this from the supermod thats warns everybody what they can and can't say in the forum.

Your right I don't want to see you posting in here.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hence why the long laundry list of moderate/more liberal folks here slowly fade away over time as they too get tired of punching a brick wall.


Odd, I thought it was that the conservatives exposed the bs and they faded away rather than look more partisan than fact. Liberalism actually is becoming more and more a religion every year. I say that because it must take a lot of faith. Liberals have more faith in government than the individual.

Say, how long do you think you can get mileage out of blaming Bush. Obama was going to cure everything just three months ago, now he is back tracking, and so are his worshipers. I would guess we will still be hearing Bush did it in 2020 if liberals think there is still someone dumb enough to believe it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Hello Ryan. Are you still going to assure us that Obama isn't going to touch our guns ---- again. It was you that said since the Super Duper Court upheld the second amendment as an individual right that we didn't need to worry anymore. That might not be the exact words, but it's completely correct. So are you still holding to that. You should, I'll bet since your still drinking the hate Sarah Palin cool aid.
> 
> When are we going to hear from the left that the assault weapon ban is just common sense gun control? I doubt we will see that screwed up of an opinion on a site like this, but when do you think some liberals will take that turn.


Hello Plainsman.

It is not Obama that will touch your guns. It will be Congress. You can scapegoat him all you want, but they are in charge of the legislative agenda. 4 years ago, Republicans should have had the foresight to realize how out of control Bush was, how that would affect this past elections results, thereby giving complete and tremendous control to the Democrats.

Honestly I am more concerned about the economy and world security, and those things Obama is by far the better choice.

In regards to the Second Amendment, I did say that the recent Court ruling would do nothing but help our Gun Rights in the long run. I still stand by that assertation. If the legislative body chooses to contest that right again, the Supreme Court will now use that precedent to strike it down and lay out stronger language of gun rights for the average citizen. Note that this is with the Court sitting as it presently does. If Obama gets to quickly seat 2 Supreme Court Justices, and the case is delayed in getting reviewed, that would be the scenario with greater problems.

There are many that are left of you (Not "on the left") that realize a gun ban isn't a blanket solution. E.g, there are many moderates who make up a majority of the populous who understand the issue has more to do with individual accountability and not an inanimate object (gun), however they want a middle ground compromise to restrict the easy availability of cheap handguns in big metro areas.

From what I've seen/heard, assault weapons isn't going to be the focus. If it is... it only will be due to the catchy "catchphrase" of "Assault Weapons Ban" which sounds tough and promising. However if I were a betting man, I'd tend to guess that the more likely restriction will be something that is more localized to big urban centers. There will be limits on where you can buy ammo, the amount of "tax" you pay on ammo in urban localities to make it prohibitive to acquire cheaply and easily, and the ability to purchase guns in large urban areas.

From what I have seen, people are recognizing that much of the violence with guns in urban areas is occuring because of the accessibility to guns/ammo locally. The logic being that if you are in a large city and wanted to do impulsive violent crime, but couldn't find the items, it would make it harder for those types of local, impulsive, "heat of the moment" crimes. Anyone wanting to acquire those items still could, but it would take a trip somewhere else, and/or more time, and thus only crimes that were much more pre-meditated would happen, and thereby it would reduce crime over time.

From what I have also seen, much of our problems with handgun crime come from smaller handgun companies who willing make lower quality weapons and market/sell them cheaper in discount type gun stores. On some level there is a bit of a tongue in cheek hush hush that those companies are on some level complicit and knowingly build cheaper guns for those that need cheaper alternatives.

Question for you Plainsman (and anyone else)... If you knew that the above paragraph were somewhat true in some fashion... would you support tighter restrictions on sub quality handgun manufacturers to ensure that they weren't being intentionally marketed cheaper, to be available easier to those looking for a cheap alternative? I realize this could lead to a slippery slope theory.. but just for arguments sake?

(We may need to split that off into it's own thread.. as this is getting away from the original)

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm said:


> > I am not so sure that everyone wants to see me posting here. Some like it when they have the floor all to themselves
> 
> 
> this from the supermod thats warns everybody what they can and can't say in the forum.
> ...


I'll agree Bob. I like debate, but I don't much care about anyone threatening people that don't agree with them. After all we still have the first amendment -------- for now anyway. As a supermoderator both of us have taken a lot of crap without saying a word. I think we take more than we would allow others to take. That's as it should be to ensure people we are being fair with them. If you can't take the heat ----well you know.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> From what I have also seen, much of our problems with handgun crime come from smaller handgun companies who willing make lower quality weapons and market/sell them cheaper in discount type gun stores.


I think poor people are entitled to self defense also. I think they are also entitled to take part in protecting the nation from tyranny. Liberals attack from all directions. Black guns are bad, cheap guns are bad, semiautos are bad, thumb hole stocks are bad, hollowpoint bullets are bad, full metal jacket bullets are bad, etc. If you looked at everything they think is bad, you will have nothing left.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have not been paying attention......but if a lot of his appointed cabinet members are people from Clinton's.......look out.

Yes we did have so good years of prosperity with Clinton....but what Clinton did to the housing and mortgage world is a part of the reason we are in this mess we are now......they pushed for cheap loans for everyone.....they pushed for lower standards in the lending practice......they pushed for loan programs with 0% down.....the list can go on and on.

Yes these are good programs.....if you can trust the public not to be stupid....but that is one thing you can't do......the public is stupid and don't know how to manage money. They need strict guidelines and rules so they don't hurt themselves.....and this mess we are in should prove that fact.

Obama has a tough row to hoe......but like others have stated I wish him well and hope he can help us get out of this mess.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> > I am not so sure that everyone wants to see me posting here. Some like it when they have the floor all to themselves
> 
> 
> this from the supermod thats warns everybody what they can and can't say in the forum.
> ...


That is a gross mischaracterization of what I intended. I never said that.

I simply said that we have people posting absoulte lies and garbage over and over, after on numerous occassions they were proven to be shown as false lies.

I was rightly justified with my disgust that those lies were not contradicted by the rest of the board. They were continually repeated, and the casual member who read them didn't know truth from fiction.

If this would have been a larger politics forum (say from a newspaper or major blog), there would have been a sheetstorm of liberal bloggers mocking or correcting those who were continually posting lies and garbage. I never saw anything remotely similar on any other forum I visited , compared to what passed as discourse on this forum.

Noowhere was the "facts" presented here about Obama being a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer, his birth certificate, his race, etc etc.. skewed as badly as they were in this forum. It became a downright joke to try and and even discuss stuff.

Like I had said in the past. I love coming here to banter back and forth. At least I used to. Some folks thought they have thick skin but they don't. Trying to use subtle forms of mockery or indignation to make a point about someone is ridiculously juvenile.

The issue isn't me. Look at how dead this place has become.

Don't worry. I won't bother coming back too often.

It might hurt the groupthink.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks Chuck. My son is a realtor also. The liberals don't want to admit it, and they prefer to say everything is Bush's fault, but the economy falls directly in their lap. The think the poor working stiff can support the lazy, but their is getting to be to many lazy and to few working stiffs. The insane Robin Hood rob from the working and use their money to buy votes from the losers will destroy America if people don't wake up.

They don't want food stamps because they care about people, they want the people who get free food to vote for them. They didn't want high risk loans so poor families could live in better homes than working people, they wanted high risk loans to get losers to vote for them. They claim to care, and they do, they care for their power. My son sent me a comic that said: "give people a fish and you feed them for a day, but make the rest of the tribe give them fish and they will vote for you forever". The libs got that one down pat.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> The issue isn't me.


Sure about that????


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Here we go with the "Its all Bush's fault" stuff again. The problems with the housing loans were started during Clinton's administration, you know, the same guys that Obama is picking for his staff right now.

I wasn't going to post any more in this thread but this statement:



R Y A N said:


> From what I have seen, people are recognizing that much of the violence with guns in urban areas is occuring because of the accessibility to guns/ammo locally. The logic being that if you are in a large city and wanted to do impulsive violent crime, but couldn't find the items, it would make it harder for those types of local, impulsive, "heat of the moment" crimes. Anyone wanting to acquire those items still could, but it would take a trip somewhere else, and/or more time, and thus only crimes that were much more pre-meditated would happen, and thereby it would reduce crime over time.


is such a load of crap that I had to say something. I've studied alot of violent crime over the years. The two examples I'll give you here, there are lots more but these are well known, are the Columbine school shooting, evidence developed after the fact shows that it was planned for over a year, and the Virginia Tech shooting, evidence here also suggests that it was planned for some time although they are not sure for how long. Much of the violence with guns in urban areas is gang related, they don't buy their stuff anyway, they steal it.

How is this going to reduce crime? It won't, but it will sure give you and your liberal friends a warm fuzzy thinking that something is being done.

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet there is no evidence that any of these laws has reduced any crime.

Have another shot of kool aid.

huntin1


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> There will be limits on where you can buy ammo, the amount of "tax" you pay on ammo in urban localities to make it prohibitive to acquire cheaply and easily, and the ability to purchase guns in large urban areas.


So we can expect checkpoints at entrances to "urban localities" to stop the ammo & guns at the gates?

How else can it be enforced?

It's not working in NY City or Chicago or anywhere else guns, etc are banned so why/how would it work another way?

Maybe Obamessiah's civilian federal agency (or whatever he called his Police State) will take care of it?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> R Y A N said:
> 
> 
> > From what I have seen, people are recognizing that much of the violence with guns in urban areas is occuring because of the accessibility to guns/ammo locally. The logic being that if you are in a large city and wanted to do impulsive violent crime, but couldn't find the items, it would make it harder for those types of local, impulsive, "heat of the moment" crimes. Anyone wanting to acquire those items still could, but it would take a trip somewhere else, and/or more time, and thus only crimes that were much more pre-meditated would happen, and thereby it would reduce crime over time.
> ...


Huntin1

I never said that it would prevent those types of crime. I said it would reduce crime. The majority of convenience store holdups, muggings, latte' stand holdups, assaults, etc are not pre-meditated for more than a day. They are done spontaneously with a "do it now" urge. If we make it harder for criminals who are living in urban squalor to get guns/ammo, but anyone else can reasonably still acquire them, how does that hurt the average law abiding hunter living in a rural state??

Like I said.. I realize there is a theory of a slipperly slope. However if you had to figure out ways to compromise, knowing that there is a huge swing in momentum and sweeping blanket changes might be coming, shouldn't we be figuring out ways to see if there are compromises/alternatives?

I was trying to give an example of possible compromises. I believe I clearly stated that a "Columbine" wouldn't be prevented, as it was pre-mediated. I was looking to reduce spur of the moment impulse crimes.

If we limit the ability to purchase ammunition easily in urban areas, it doesn't matter if they steal guns. They aren't going to run 200 miles into the country to purchase ammo for a crime they want to commit down the street. I realize there are tons of "exceptions" to this suggestion... but it is better than nothing.

I'll give you my local example Huntin1. Here is Seattle I see no reason why any non lawenforcement human needs to purchase ammo in Seattle at any store other than the local gun clubs. The guys that shoot at the clubs normally either reload (criminals dont) or their purchase a couple of boxes "extra" at the club while shooting. If they go hunting they drive 150 miles + away to go hunt. Therefore, if they want to go hunting, they can drive down to Lacey WA to the local Cabelas and purchase hunting ammo/pistol ammo etc... once again few criminals go into Cabelas to get their ammo.. I'm sure some do however... but the majority is my goal to get some reductions in gun violence. Continuing... My logic is this... Seeing as the law abiding hard core local shooters in town rarely get their ammo locally, there really isn't a need for ammo to be sold downtown in large urban areas. If they do need to buy locally, they should setup background checks on the gun club members, and allow those who are members (passed a check) to buy ammo. For everyone else it isn't a huge issue, as most every legal citizen can still purchase ammo and have some put away.

I realize that we are reducing overall ease of purchase and availability in large metros with this idea, but not really in the sense that we can only shoot at the local clubs anyways? (btw... the best/largest club locally is run by the Police anyways)

So with that in mind... If we just compromised on reducing large urban city violence by reducing accessibility of ammo only in those large cities, that might make a HUGE difference in gun crime.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I realize this is a tad rambling... I was just trying to get my point out of my head and was typing fast.

For what it is worth... we have now had 4 shootings in Seattle this year(in 9 days). I don't think we had 4 all of last year. The economy is really affecting everyone alot and I hope this isn't a trend.

Peace.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

From another thread talking about the upcoming assault weapon ban:



> I can't believe anyone was dumb enough to think Obama and the liberal congress would not pass this. Some said, oh Obama supports the second amendment. Others said that can't happen now that the supreme court upheld private gun ownership and the second amendment. Some days I swear if brains were nitro some people couldn't blow their nose.
> 
> The people who parroted this crap deserve the nation they get. Unfortunately we have to suffer along with them for their stupidity. God save us from fools. I hope they have enough sense left to hang their head in shame when this passes.
> 
> ...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

JustAnotherDog said:


> > There will be limits on where you can buy ammo, the amount of "tax" you pay on ammo in urban localities to make it prohibitive to acquire cheaply and easily, and the ability to purchase guns in large urban areas.
> 
> 
> So we can expect checkpoints at entrances to "urban localities" to stop the ammo & guns at the gates?
> ...


Like I said my ideas are meant to slow the wave of gun violence. It won't be a total removal of everything currently out there. It will take some time to get to a point of less availability and supply in large metros. With the laziness of your average thug ..they aren't going to make them drive an hour away to go buy 1 box of rounds.

Sure it won't stop those who are planning on buying large quantities, but that would likely be another warning flag. Let's say to solve some additional part of the issue, you had to register as a target shooter, the same way you register for a concealed permit now. Identical process, and in fact for arguments sake, let's say we make it necessary to have a concealed permit to purchase handgun ammo in a large urban areas of greater than 250,000 people. In that way you'd have to show a permit to purchase ammo. It doesn't restrict you if you pass a background check and have a valid permit. Law abiding citizens are not restricted in any fashion.

If you simply made it harder to get ammo by those not having passed a background check/possessing a permit imagine how hard it would be for a felon (who shouldn't have a gun by law), or a thug who has felony warrants?

You have to have a permit now to have a possession license for handguns in many locales. Why not simply make those locations modify there law to make it necessary to have a possession permit necessary to purchase ammo too?

I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of conversation. I'm not advocating anything. However we as shooters and sportsmen better start forming some strategies now in order to keep our shooting tradition alive for the long term.

Or so it seems to me...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan, I would listen to huntin1 a little instead of trying to tell him how thins work. He has been in law enforcement about 30 years. He has a college degree in criminology. He takes dozens of training courses, and teaches others. Even though we are not in the big city we have people that come from Minneapolis and give us training on gang behavior. We don't have it now, but we are always prepared for anything that might happen. People come from around the United States to train people here in Jamestown. I would guess huntin1 has a better perspective of gangs even in the area you live than you do. You might recognize a face or two, but huntin1 has been trained in their behavior and countering their methods. This is just a case of the blind attempting to leading the 20/20 visioned people.

Contrary to what the media tells you law enforcement people are not strong supporters of all these liberal gun control laws. It's simply a big media lie. You know how one gun control group now calls itself the American shooters association or something like that. Well the national police chiefs association isn't all police chiefs. The one handgun control incorporated talks about are cherry picked to serve their purpose.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Yes, Ryan I see what you are trying to say and you are slowly slipping down that slippery slope.

If a person is criminally inclined what is to stop him from stealing ammo as well as firearms. Criminals aren't the brghtest light bulb out there, but they are not totally ignorant. BG is sittin around saying I need a six pack but I got no money. I'll just go down to the off sale and steal me some beer and cash, I got a knife it'll be easy. So he does and gets what he wants. But, the guy wasn't a scared as he should have been so BG decides to steal a gun for the next time and does. But wait, no ammo, ****, spent all the money on weed, hey I'll just steal some. And does. Now he has a gun and ammo on hand with which to do his next crime. He doesn't know what or when, or even that he'll do it again, but statistics says he will and it will likely be spur of the moment, only this time he has a gun. But one that he did not buy, nor did he buy ammo for it either.

How are these feel good liberal gun laws going to help this situation. How are they going to reduce cime. Taking guns and ammo away does nothing to deter the criminal from criminal activity, he'll use a knife, or a pipe, or whatever is handy until he can steal a gun. This has been tried and failed in numerous places across the country, but the liberals don't learn from it, lets just throw more laws at the problem. Why not concentrate on the criminal, put his *** away and if the crime is a violent one, don't let him out.

You're falling into a trap Ryan, it all sounds so logical, but statistics don't bear out what the liberals want to do. Criminals aren't logical people and they don't care about the laws that are passed, those laws don't restrict their activity, only the activity of law abiding folks that no one has to worry about anyway.

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Ryan, I would listen to huntin1 a little instead of trying to tell him how thins work. He has been in law enforcement about 30 years. He has a college degree in criminology. He takes dozens of training courses, and teaches others. Even though we are not in the big city we have people that come from Minneapolis and give us training on gang behavior.


Plainsman you know fully well I know who Huntin1 is. I know where he got his criminolgy degree. I know because he took the same classes the same years I did from many of the very same professors.

I forget Huntin1 were you in any of my classes with Professor Stone? I think you were if I remember right?

Do you know where I was the moment Columbine was going down Plainsman? I was attending a Terrorism Task Force class with Stutsman County SO, Jamestown PD, ND BCI, Fargo PD etc.. Don't believe me? Ask Edinger or Nagel. I roomed with them. Heck I still have the T shirt from that seminar and some of the handouts.

I've taken many of the same classes as him at the very same school, at almost the identical time with the very same people. If I wanted to go back and finish out that degree it would take me one semester. So you could almost say I have that degree (too)

I think you have forgotten Plainsman that I too used to be in LE.

But go with that theory.

:thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lait319 and NDterminator were perhaps at the same gang training class that I went to because it was held in Devils Lake. The guy teaching it was a fed who was stationed in Minneapolis and had been in federal law enforcement for 35 years.
He said in Minneapolis black gangs and hispanic gangs sometimes work together and that's good because one is much easier to break. Can you guess. No I will not tell anyone here.

I will pass along a funny story he told about breaking up one drug gang. It begin by breaking one of the top guys, and this is how it went.

The guy owned three cars each worth over $200,000. One day they stopped him for speeding. They had reason to hold him for about four hours. The guy kept all the cars in his girlfriends name. The IRS is the only agency that doesn't need a warrant for a search. The guy called a friend at IRS and asked "would you be interested in a guy that has over a half million into three cars, and estimated multimillion income per year, and pays no taxes. The guy said you bet. They went to the girlfriends house and were about to look for drugs, the the guy teaching the class first asked this. Is the Lamborghini in your name too, or is that in his other girlfriends name? OTHER GIRL FRIEND!!!!!! She was ticked. Nothing like a woman's wrath. She showed them where the drugs were, where the money was at, the bank accounts on the computer, and his weapons stash. When all was settled they made nearly 100 arrests and solved multiple drug related murders.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you know where I was the moment Columbine was going down Plainsman? I was attending a Terrorism Task Force class with Stutsman County SO, Jamestown PD, ND BCI, Fargo PD etc.. Don't believe me? Ask Edinger or Nagel. I roomed with them.


Wow, small world. I have been with the Stutsman co. Sheriff's dept since 1987. I had never met you until last deer season. How did you mange to hide so well?
How long were you in LE?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You may be right, I don't recall, we were both at JC at the same time. But then Prof. Stone and I got along pretty well, I took most of his classes directed study and didn't come to class. I know we had a couple of classes together just not sure if they were CJ.

I gotta get some studying done, 12 page paper due. 

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> Yes, Ryan I see what you are trying to say and you are slowly slipping down that slippery slope.
> 
> If a person is criminally inclined what is to stop him from stealing ammo as well as firearms.


Nothing is going to stop them in your example. I've already stated this isn't a cure all for every example. There are hundreds of exceptions one can think of. The goal is a reduction. Any reduction that will make a dent. We are ultimately fighting for the same goal right? More public safety via reducing crimes committed with guns.

Yes I fully realize that is a damn slippery slope. I'm just trying to find ways to actually make a difference with urban gun violence.



huntin1 said:


> How are these feel good liberal gun laws going to help this situation. How are they going to reduce cime. Taking guns and ammo away does nothing to deter the criminal from criminal activity, he'll use a knife, or a pipe, or whatever is handy until he can steal a gun. This has been tried and failed in numerous places across the country, but the liberals don't learn from it, lets just throw more laws at the problem.


I'm not in favor of blanket bans for those very reasons. I'm in favor of making it extremely difficult to have the ability to have all the pieces of the puzzle (ammo in this case, without it a gun is worthless)

To be honest, I'm fine with them using knives, pipes, fists. None of those will kill me in stray fire at a club or on the street. None of those will affect your/my hunting rights or abilities.



huntin1 said:


> Why not concentrate on the criminal, put his a$$ away and if the crime is a violent one, don't let him out.


You know honestly we could do that if we decriminalized marijuana and stopped fighting a failed drug war that puts non violent offenders into prison.

The prohibition of marijuana is a political fiasco of the highest magnitude. We've proven that cars, alcohol, and tobacco are all far more deadly yet we have no prohibitions on them. We all know it was the drug companies that managed thru politics to get THC banned even though it is far more effective than manufactured chemicals.

If we concentrated our valuable prison space on putting away felony _criminals who committed crimes with a weapon or violence of any fashion_, we would have more than enough space to put them away for life if they commit a felony with the use of a firearm. Imagine that?

Of course politically speaking that would never fly, as we now have private prison companies who would stand to go bankrupt if we didn't have enough drug prisoners to send them.



huntin1 said:


> You're falling into a trap Ryan, it all sounds so logical, but statistics don't bear out what the liberals want to do. Criminals aren't logical people and they don't care about the laws that are passed, those laws don't restrict their activity, only the activity of law abiding folks that no one has to worry about anyway.
> 
> huntin1


I agree with this huntin1. The problem though is that you lump all folks who are more liberal leaning into one group. That is part of the problem. There are much more folks in the middle who don't eat the spoon fed liberal agenda the ultras want to have.

Ultimately this reply is about guns and how we can most effectively regulate them so that law abiding folks have them, and criminal elements have a hard time securing them or the ammo they use in them.

Until such time as we find new ways to try, we can keep using the same old strategies that continually fail. I was just trying to entertain the possiblity of a new strategy that has promise IMO.

Thanks for taking a look at my thoughts. I really appreciate it.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Do you know where I was the moment Columbine was going down Plainsman? I was attending a Terrorism Task Force class with Stutsman County SO, Jamestown PD, ND BCI, Fargo PD etc.. Don't believe me? Ask Edinger or Nagel. I roomed with them.
> 
> 
> Wow, small world. I have been with the Stutsman co. Sheriff's dept since 1987. I had never met you until last deer season. How did you mange to hide so well?
> How long were you in LE?


PM coming Plainsman later tonight. Got to head out for home from work. :computer:

Few years. Not too long. Microsoft came calling to ask me to use my Computer degree. Was tough to turn them down....


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I was so disgusted by the post about gun control helping control crime by Ryan, I just had to skip the rest of it.

Ryan, more gun control means more and more crime period. Less gun control means less crime. This was even proved by a study from the stanford law review.

The only people gun control has worked for in history was the NAZI's, and it made it real nice so they could do whatever they wanted.

Over the entire history of mankind, the more armed the society, the more peaceful the civilization.

The highest percentage of firearm ownership leads to the lowest rate of crime.

And yes, violent crime has dropped since the assault weapon ban EXPIRED!

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Ryan, you have proved over and over, but never so much as now that you watch CNN and just repeat what the talking heads say.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> I was so disgusted by the post about gun control helping control crime by Ryan, I just had to skip the rest of it.
> 
> Ryan, more gun control means more and more crime period. Less gun control means less crime. This was even proved by a study from the stanford law review.


skipping my post has led you to jump to conclusions SD Bearfan. I'm not advocating gun control at all!

My suggestion wouldn't prevent anyone from having guns or ammo if they were legal law abiding residents.

Read it again and try calming down first.

Geesshhhh


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Back to Sara Palin and the Media Hypocresy.
Notice how when Caroline Kennedy put herself forward the media is somewhat silent. She is a liberal darling and will be treated with doeskin gloves. uke: 
The reason some here myself included can support Palin is she is one of us. Where she came from, how she was raised, values she was taught and on and on.........
How many here can relate to the Lifestyle Caroline Kennedy has experienced? Anyone? My quess not many.

Can someone explain how the ignore button is supposed to work? :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Not only that Zogman, but Kennedy has zero experience. They talk about how the liberals care. Kennedy has given nearly nothing to charity. What makes her worthy of Senator? Her name is Kennedy and for many that's enough. Shallow, extremely shallow people will support her. 
Those same people are scared to death of Palin. I hate to admit it but I think the reason some are afraid of Palin is because she has morals. They like the hippies of the 60's want to live by the code of "if it feels good do it". Morals would endanger their fun. They might get a woman pregnant who doesn't want an abortion, and God forbid they might have to pay child support. Ya, she is dangerous. After all she kept her child knowing it would have a defect. Terrible, absolutely terrible. How many times did we hear that? You see if they could liberals would force her to kill that kid.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'm not advocating anything. However we as shooters and sportsmen better start forming some strategies now in order to keep our shooting tradition alive for the long term.


I think the best strategy is to hold our ground. Don't fall for the old reasonable gun control ploy. That is what Obama said during the his campaign, but I can guarantee you his idea of reasonable and mine are not close. I also fear yours Ryan. We have enough laws now enforce them. However, the liberals don't want to punish anyone, they would rather blame an inanimate object.

Have you noticed over the years that when we compromise we actually loose and the gun control people actually win. Back when they banned being able to buy guns from a catalogue (1968) my father said "I fear this compromising with the gun ban people is like compromising with a hungry bear. You let the bear eat one leg so that you can live, but tomorrow the bear is hungry again".


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

A legitimate question, and pertinent to the _second_ topic of this thread.

Since we have people here educated on the subject, and I see repeatedly in this thread the desire is to reduce criminal gun ownership without compromising the rights of the law-abiding citizens (except for the poor ones who won't be able to afford one when production of the cheaper guns is halted by the ideas discussed), I would like to see some opinions on one thing....

How much would gun violence be reduced if we eliminated repeat offenders?

I realize that shows I am guilty of backwards thinking, and also that I could be completely heartless to actually allow the thought of punishing* the criminal* to creep into my mind, but I'd like to see some answers to that question.

As a side question, when will the high cost of heroin and cocaine finally show us that decline in illegal drug trafficking we'd all like to see?

Or did it already happen...and I missed it?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

R y a n said:


> Nothing is going to stop them in your example. I've already stated this isn't a cure all for every example. There are hundreds of exceptions one can think of. The goal is a reduction.
> Ryan


Chicago and DC hjave "reduced" legal firearms to the point that they are still impossible to obtain legally even after Heller. Gun crime is still a problem, and self defence is near impossible.



R y a n said:


> You have to have a permit now to have a possession license for handguns in many locales. Why not simply make those locations modify there law to make it necessary to have a possession permit necessary to purchase ammo too?


Because I dont need a permit to exercise a right.



R y a n said:


> Seeing as the law abiding hard core local shooters in town rarely get their ammo locally, there really isn't a need for ammo to be sold downtown in large urban areas.


Im a "hardcore" shooter, and I buy my ammo at walmart because I can save upwards of 40% on ammo prices. I also save a lot of moneyn (and prevent a lot of evil green house gasses) by driving to the walmart 10 miles away instead of the Cabellas 90 miles away.

There were many more points to contest, but I'll save my fingers. Fact is you're gonna roll right over as our rights are eroded away. And the short time you retain bits and pieces of your rights are going to be courtesey of people like me, Huntin1, and Plainsman that fight for your rights against your will.

Sportsmen for "common sence" gun control disgust me.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yep, hunting those pheasants in NODAK with a slingshot is going to be a *****!


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And we begin the move from the era that Blamed the president for everything to the ERA where it is all congress's fault.

Just laughable.

Before we pass more laws, especially gun control laws, maybe we should try enforcing the ones we have for a change.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

R Y A N said:


> Until such time as we find new ways to try, we can keep using the same old strategies that continually fail. I was just trying to entertain the possiblity of a new strategy that has promise IMO.


I got so busy studying that I missed this.

I'm all for trying something new to allieviate problems. However, what you suggest is not new at all. This is one of those same old failed strategies. Liberal Democrats have been throwing gun laws and ammo bans at us for years. What has been accomplished? Nothing. All we get are new confusing laws that suck up manpower trying to enfoce them, and they end up targeting otherwise law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals that they are supposed to.

No, I don't have an answer. But this isn't it.

huntin1


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

The those of you whose head is still in the sand and refuse to think it's not coming or think we need


> Sportsmen for "common sence" gun control


Just bend over and SMILE :lol: cause it's here

and to the rest of us we will just get bent over :******:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is going to stop them in your example. I've already stated this isn't a cure all for every example. There are hundreds of exceptions one can think of. The goal is a reduction.
> ...


Gun Owner all of these analogies you are trying to use to make a point have serious flaws.

I'm talking about limiting how we go about getting ammo. I'm trying to discuss whether if we can control ammo and make it available to law abiding sportsman and shooters, and make it extremely difficult (compared to current difficulty) for gangs/criminals to obtain ammo.

Once again I'll repeat and type slower. This is not about banning guns. There are too many guns, and banning doesn't work.

However as a suggestion, I've suggested that by keeping track of who purchases handgun ammo in large urban areas ONLY it will lead to reductions in handgun crimes in large URBAN areas. If my suggestion was applied uniformly in ALL large URBAN areas, (which I've mentioned before could be cities/counties with more than 250,000 people). Therefore you can't tell me that we limited availability of ammo in those areas that after a period of time, the handgun crime would decrease.)

You seem to forget that criminals in the locations you mentioned are obtaining their illegal guns/ammo from neighboring jurisdictions. Consider that if this suggestion were applied uniformily, they wouldn't have the ability to obtain ammo. They can have all the guns they want, but without ammo they are useless pieces of metal.



Gun Owner said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > You have to have a permit now to have a possession license for handguns in many locales. Why not simply make those locations modify there law to make it necessary to have a possession permit necessary to purchase ammo too?
> ...


A right to purchase ammo? I didn't realize the right to purchase ammo existed? My suggestion is just finding a way to have a limitation to who can purchase ammo within the jurisdiction of large urban areas. My suggestion doesn't limit possession in any fashion by citizens legally able to do so now.



Gun Owner said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing as the law abiding hard core local shooters in town rarely get their ammo locally, there really isn't a need for ammo to be sold downtown in large urban areas.
> ...


You may be a hardcore shooter Gun Owner, but do you live in a large urban area (more than 250,000 in your city/county)? If you do this proposal would affect you. If not it wouldn't.

We have to draw the line somewhere. Nothing is currently working to reduce the gun violence in large urban areas. If you are inconvenienced by having to buy ammo outside of a large urban area (as I would be by this idea), then that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to see if this idea would work.



Gun Owner said:


> There were many more points to contest, but I'll save my fingers. Fact is you're gonna roll right over as our rights are eroded away. And the short time you retain bits and pieces of your rights are going to be courtesy of people like me, Huntin1, and Plainsman that fight for your rights against your will.
> 
> Sportsmen for "common sence" gun control disgust me.


I'm not rolling over to anything Gun Owner. We as sportsman/shooters are going to have to be open to suggestions for compromise in the near future. Being 100% stubborn and unyielding could result in far more drastic restrictions if we are not willing to at least discuss the merits of different ideas on boards such as this. I'm not tucking tail to any of the Anti-Gun nazis from the Brady Campaign. However the United States is becoming far more urban faster than most realize. That will changeup who the "majority" of citizens compromise in the future. One only needs to look at how the electoral map has changed in the past 5 years to see where the demographic and population changes are occurring.

There are now more US citizens living in urban areas that there are in rural areas. I give it 1 or possibly 2 more election cycles before this becomes game changing obvious. Those urban citizens are not going to have any understanding of why rural people can't live without handguns. Living out here I'm am continually amazed at the complete lack of understanding of the rural way of life, farming, hunting, ranching, hunting, shooting, etc. The generation of kids in high school right now has NO concept of life outside of media, technology and urban living. Those generation of kids have no empathy towards your gun rights whatsoever. The immigrant populations that I see, socialize and work with have no concept of any of the above either. They and their children also have no empathy for all the things you enjoy and hold dear.

In summary Gun Owner... I hope you understand I'm just trying to open up lines of discussion amongst us here on this board. We need to understand who the voting public is now, who they will be in 4 years from now, and who they comprise in a generation. We need to discuss if there are differences in laws between urban and rural areas, and push for necessary limitations in places where they may exist to promote the greater good.

We have a tendency to blindly follow the NRA as they are a powerful important lobby in our cause. But we also need to consider for ourselves whether we are sacrificing the safety of those who live in urban areas at the expense of us maintaining an absolute "no change" mantra.

If we are not willing to look for compromises when we have the current upper hand, then in the future, don't expect that when the majority of urban Americans decides it no longer sees a need for gun rights at all, that they aren't willing to compromise with you, and take away everything in your all or nothing gamble.

My .02

Ryan


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Do you ever wonder why gun control is never voted on and only dreamed up by politicians?

Because it would fail everywhere.

CA has the most strict laws, yet, highest gun crime rate.

Switzerland requires every male from 20-42 to have an assault rifle, yet, have almost the lowest gun crime in the world.

Australias gun crime rate has almost doubled in the 10 years since enabling very strict licensing laws.

Britians gun crime has almost doubled since banning handguns.

Most countries with all out bans have the highest gun crime rates in the world.

Less than 1% of all deaths are related to firearms, and that throws in criminals shot in self defense or by the authorities.

Gun control is a farce created by politicians to play on people's mentality. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.

How people continue to blame inanimate objects for death is just a continuation of how nothing is ever anyones fault. Someone has to pull the trigger.

It has been proved time and time again, when gun ownership is banned or curtailed severly by law, crime rates skyrocket, because only the criminals will have guns.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

R y a n said:


> Gun Owner all of these analogies you are trying to use to make a point have serious flaws.
> 
> I'm talking about limiting how we go about getting ammo. I'm trying to discuss whether if we can control ammo and make it available to law abiding sportsman and shooters, and make it extremely difficult (compared to current difficulty) for gangs/criminals to obtain ammo.


Ok, riddle me this... If its impossible to legally get a gun in an area, how will making the ammo hard to get change anything? Answer is it wont, because if the guy selling stolen guns in the alley behind taco bell wants to keep selling guns to thugs, all he has to do is bring ammo from the same place the gun came from. Dont forget the average convience store armed robbery doesnt even need bullets, just the threat of the bullet. So selling a cheap stlen revolver full of ammo is just as easy as selling one thats empty.



R y a n said:


> Once again I'll repeat and type slower.


Insult my intelligence. Arent you a moderator???



R y a n said:


> This is not about banning guns. There are too many guns, and banning doesn't work.


I understand that. Im telling you that if the guns are brough in illegally, so will ammo. Its that simple, cut and dry. Hell as it is you can't buy ammo for a pistol unless you are 21, and thats across the entire United States. And yet we still see teenage gang bangers shooting each other in cities across America.

I'll take your lead and type slow for this. Crim-in-als are CRIM-IN-ALS! They will get what they want to do bad things re-gard-less of what laws you and your type try to inflict on the ma-jor-i-ty of us law a-bi-ding ci-ti-zens.



R y a n said:


> You seem to forget that criminals in the locations you mentioned are obtaining their illegal guns/ammo from neighboring jurisdictions. Consider that if this suggestion were applied uniformily, they wouldn't have the ability to obtain ammo. They can have all the guns they want, but without ammo they are useless pieces of metal.


Ok, Im confused here. They get their guns and ammo from neighboring jurisdictions, but making ammo hard to find in urban areas will change that?



R y a n said:


> A right to purchase ammo? I didn't realize the right to purchase ammo existed? My suggestion is just finding a way to have a limitation to who can purchase ammo within the jurisdiction of large urban areas. My suggestion doesn't limit possession in any fashion by citizens legally able to do so now.


Actually you do. The right to keep and bear arms includes the ammunition for said arms. The gungrabbers have tried to make that very argument that implies the right to ammo is not guaranteed. It was bogus then, just as your point is bogus now.



R y a n said:


> You may be a hardcore shooter Gun Owner, but do you live in a large urban area (more than 250,000 in your city/county)? If you do this proposal would affect you. If not it wouldn't.


So if a limitation on the general rights of Americans doesnt apply to me I shouldn't care? Thats the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum. You are in fact encouraging apathy in your fellow citizens.

For what its worth, no I dont live in a largely populated county. But that could change as urban sprawl moves to me from SLC. I also have friends and family in large areas that like buying cheap ammo at Wal-Mart just as much as I do.



R y a n said:


> you are inconvenienced by having to buy ammo outside of a large urban area (as I would be by this idea), then that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to see if this idea would work.


Thats fine, give up your rights. Dont give mine up for me thank you. And dont get to bent out of shape that I'll fight to keep your rights as well as my own. Its just something you'll have to live (freely) with.



R y a n said:


> I'm not rolling over to anything Gun Owner. We as sportsman/shooters are going to have to be open to suggestions for compromise in the near future. Being 100% stubborn and unyielding could result in far more drastic restrictions if we are not willing to at least discuss the merits of different ideas on boards such as this. I'm not tucking tail to any of the Anti-Gun nazis from the Brady Campaign. However the United States is becoming far more urban faster than most realize. That will changeup who the "majority" of citizens compromise in the future. One only needs to look at how the electoral map has changed in the past 5 years to see where the demographic and population changes are occurring.


Just because an area is urban doesnt mean it changes our INALIENABLE rights. Getting tough on criminals, encouraging law abiding citizens to protect themselves in stead of cowering like sheep, and in general educating our children will all do more things to prevent violence (and that can be violence with a gun, a knife, or a freaking board with a rusty nail in it).

To quote one of the greatest minds in American history, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,"



R y a n said:


> There are now more US citizens living in urban areas that there are in rural areas. I give it 1 or possibly 2 more election cycles before this becomes game changing obvious. Those urban citizens are not going to have any understanding of why rural people can't live without handguns.


I was born and raised in Las Vegas. I still knew what rights I had, as well as chosing to excersize them.



R y a n said:


> Living out here I'm am continually amazed at the complete lack of understanding of the rural way of life, farming, hunting, ranching, hunting, shooting, etc. The generation of kids in high school right now has NO concept of life outside of media, technology and urban living. Those generation of kids have no empathy towards your gun rights whatsoever. The immigrant populations that I see, socialize and work with have no concept of any of the above either. They and their children also have no empathy for all the things you enjoy and hold dear.


Again, just for posterity, just because you, or half a billion other people dont care about my rights is no reason to give them up. And FYI that generation of kids that dont care about my rights inclused me. Im not even 30. You'd be surprised at how many people my age actually do give a damn about their rights, you just wont hear about it on the liberal media.



R y a n said:


> In summary Gun Owner... I hope you understand I'm just trying to open up lines of discussion amongst us here on this board.


rehashing the same old baseless argument on bans effectiveness for the point of discussion does nothing. It cant get any clearer than that.

Lets look at a scenario.

17 yr old kid shoots and kills a 7-11 clerk at 3am with a stolen revolver he had hidden under a sweatshirt that has had the serial number filed off.

How many bans were there to prevent this crime?
1. 17 yr olds cannot legally possess a pistol unless under the supervision of a legal adult.
2. It is illegal for anyone to rob someone else.
3. It is illegal to brandish a firearm
4. It is illegal to shoot a human (self-defence issues aside)
5. It is illegal to murder a human.
6. It is illegal to conceal a firearm without a permit, which a 17 yr old cannot obtain.
7. It is illegal for a 17 yr old to be on the streets after curfew, typically 10pm to midnight in most areas.

I'm sure there are more, but as you can plainly see, making it hard for my dad, brother, and even my dear friend Decoy Dummy to buy ammo at Wal-Mart within the limits of the city wouldn't have done jack.



R y a n said:


> If we are not willing to look for compromises when we have the current upper hand.......


We don't have the upperhand. We haven't had the upper hand since the 1930s. We lost more ground in 1968, 1986, and 1994. We gained some ground back in 2004, and again some ground last year with the Heller decision, but we are far from having an upper hand. And even if we did have the upperhand, that is the last time in which one would want to compromise. I want my rights back, and I want them all. I shouldnt need a permit to carry a concealed pistol to protect myself and my family. I shouldnt have to give up my 4th amendment rights to own a fully automatic firearm.

If you have a new idea, Im open to it. But rehashing a gun restriction as an ammo restriction is nothing new, and wont work. It is an exercise in futility for you to try and convince myself and others to give up our remaining rights no matter how good it will make you and other sheep feel.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Bottom line...WE'RE SCREWED  :


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Limiting ammo in large urban areas may at first seem to be a good idea, but I think it's just the first step down that slippery slope to a total ban. If ammo was limited in large urban areas and was available elsewhere, it would just create a profitable illegal black market for ammo in these areas. Criminals don't need a lot of ammo, just enough to keep their gun full. They don't practice shooting, they don't need to, most of their shots will be up close and personal. When this "compromise" fails, the gun grabbers will be pizzed that they compromised on this urban ban and will want to ban all ammo and guns too.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

MOB said:


> Limiting ammo in large urban areas may at first seem to be a good idea, but I think it's just the first step down that slippery slope to a total ban. If ammo was limited in large urban areas and was available elsewhere, it would just create a profitable illegal black market for ammo in these areas. Criminals don't need a lot of ammo, just enough to keep their gun full. They don't practice shooting, they don't need to, most of their shots will be up close and personal. When this "compromise" fails, the gun grabbers will be pizzed that they compromised on this urban ban and will want to ban all ammo and guns too.


EXACTLY!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Once again I'll repeat and type slower.


Good grief Ryan you have enough arrogance for ten smart *****.

I can't believe anyone has bought the liberal agenda to a point they push it on a hunting/fishing site. What you are saying is exactly what Kennedy was pushing a few years ago. It is why he called for a 1000 % sales tax on ammo. That's right 1000% and Obama has advocated 500%.

Read up a little more Ryan what you proposing only punishes the innocent. And yes Ryan the second amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms - loaded arms. Do you really think our founding gathers intended those to be unloaded arms? I just can't believe what I am reading. :eyeroll:

You say to GunOwner as shooters it's something we will have to give up. How many times in a year do you have a gun in your hands Ryan. Your in a large city, and from what I can tell you have become a coffee shop sportsman. Tell me if I am wrong assuming your more familiar with a Latte than a Winchester.

Paying double for ammo doesn't mean much to people who shoot one box a year, but what about the guy that shoots 5000 rounds of centerfire? No thanks Ryan I don't want any of your liberal gun control snake oil. Come back to North Dakota Ryan you have lost touch with sportsmen.


----------



## the Kansas (Jan 13, 2009)

I lost my old account, so now I'm operating under this one and decided to join in.



R y a n said:


> Gun Owner all of these analogies you are trying to use to make a point have serious flaws.


No they don't. No matter how big or how small, how minor or extreme, gun control in any shape or form will ALWAYS fail to do anything do stop, reduce, or inhibit crimes. Criminals won't obey, ever. What you're suggesting is like stating that jaywalking laws will prevent bank robberies because the criminal wouldn't dare consider running right across the street.



> I'm talking about limiting how we go about getting ammo. I'm trying to discuss whether if we can control ammo and make it available to law abiding sportsman and shooters, and make it extremely difficult (compared to current difficulty) for gangs/criminals to obtain ammo.


It's possible, but not very politically correct. The best way to enable legal owners to have access to ammo, while denying it to violent individuals, is to either lock up anybody with any sort of a criminal record, or start holding public executions for gang members.



> Once again I'll repeat and type slower. This is not about banning guns. There are too many guns, and banning doesn't work.


Say it as slow or as fast as you want, it doesn't change what the message says. Gun control doesn't work, bullet control won't work either. The 1968 Gun Control Act had a provision for background checks on ammo purchasers, and it was repealed because it was determined to be of little use and not worth keeping.



> However as a suggestion, I've suggested that by keeping track of who purchases handgun ammo in large urban areas ONLY it will lead to reductions in handgun crimes in large URBAN areas. If my suggestion was applied uniformly in ALL large URBAN areas, (which I've mentioned before could be cities/counties with more than 250,000 people). Therefore you can't tell me that we limited availability of ammo in those areas that after a period of time, the handgun crime would decrease.)


So now you're saying that the people who live in urban areas don't have the same rights as those that live in rural areas? That's one hell of a double standard you have there. "Move to the big city and surrender your constitutional rights, it's for your own good" yeah right!



> You seem to forget that criminals in the locations you mentioned are obtaining their illegal guns/ammo from neighboring jurisdictions. Consider that if this suggestion were applied uniformily, they wouldn't have the ability to obtain ammo. They can have all the guns they want, but without ammo they are useless pieces of metal.


At this very moment over in Great Britain or some other part of the United Kingdom, somebody is being robbed at gunpoint, by a mugger who has an obviously illegal handgun. It's likely a plastic replica of the real thing, but it doesn't matter if it's plastic or wood or steel or the real thing, because the individual looking down the barrel believes that their life is in danger.

Oh yeah, and another thing. Watch as little pakistani kids are manufacturing ammunition. http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGF ... sc=1363196



> A right to purchase ammo? I didn't realize the right to purchase ammo existed?


Are you also unaware of the right to have ballpoint pens?



> My suggestion is just finding a way to have a limitation to who can purchase ammo within the jurisdiction of large urban areas. My suggestion doesn't limit possession in any fashion by citizens legally able to do so now.


It isn't something that's possible. Those who're prohibited from owning or possessing a gun are also prohibited from ammunition. The last time I checked, a felon in possession of a single round of ammunition could face five years in prison for that single round. So my suggestion is stop the plea bargaining, and instead bust these guys and lock them away for the rest of their lives at fives years per round; have a box of 50 rounds, 250 years in maximum security prison with no chance of parole. Don't like it, I don't care, the bloody liberals are the reason we have so much crime as it is.



> You may be a hardcore shooter Gun Owner, but do you live in a large urban area (more than 250,000 in your city/county)? If you do this proposal would affect you. If not it wouldn't.


Oh so it's back to the concept of not recognizing the rights of those that live in urban and city areas. Yeah that's real fair, that's balanced.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? You must have, because I don't see how somebody of functional intelligence could come up with such a stupid idea!



> We have to draw the line somewhere. Nothing is currently working to reduce the gun violence in large urban areas.


That's because nothing is being done. We have enough laws regarding the punishment of misuse of firearms to put away EVERY gang member and armed criminal for decades, but for some reason the courts aren't enforcing them. Instead they're willing to immediately drop all the weapons charges and accept a plea deal involving conspiracy, slap the perp with probation, and put them right back out on the street again.



> If you are inconvenienced by having to buy ammo outside of a large urban area (as I would be by this idea), then that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to see if this idea would work.


So...somebody else being inconvenienced is a sacrifice you're willing to make? Oh yeah that's real fair, that's the way of doing things. I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of having anti-Americans shipped out of the country and air dropped in countries like Pakistan and Guatemala.



> I'm not rolling over to anything Gun Owner.


I think you are. To me it sounds like you're saying "screw anyone and everyone that lives in the cities, that's the price you have to pay for being an urbanite!"



> We as sportsman/shooters are going to have to be open to suggestions for compromise in the near future.


No we aren't. Nothing that's being proposed right now is a compromise, it's a surrender. Bans on semi-automatic firearms, bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, bans on purely cosmetic features, letting frivolous lawsuits be brought against firearms manufacturers, bullet serialization, firearms microstamping, paying fees for the registration of your firearms, banning gun stores within five miles of a park, etc.? How exactly are these compromises? Nobody of any level of sanity would consider even a single one of these bills a compromise.



> Being 100% stubborn and unyielding could result in far more drastic restrictions if we are not willing to at least discuss the merits of different ideas on boards such as this.


Alright then let's have it out right here, right now. What exactly are the merits of zoning restrictions that would make it illegal for a gun store to be within five miles of a park, school or other gun store?

What are the merits of telling people that they have no legal right to magazines that can hold 15 rounds of ammunition?

What are the merits of letting the Attorney General ban whatever guns they want to at will, without having to explain why they should be banned?

Start explaining! You opened up this can of worms, and I'm not willing to let you wriggle your way out of it!



> I'm not tucking tail to any of the Anti-Gun nazis from the Brady Campaign. However the United States is becoming far more urban faster than most realize. That will changeup who the "majority" of citizens compromise in the future. One only needs to look at how the electoral map has changed in the past 5 years to see where the demographic and population changes are occurring.


So what if America is urbanizing at a quick pace? It's never been proven to me that constitutional rights and cities don't mix. Perhaps you could explain this alien concept to me?



> There are now more US citizens living in urban areas that there are in rural areas. I give it 1 or possibly 2 more election cycles before this becomes game changing obvious. Those urban citizens are not going to have any understanding of why rural people can't live without handguns.


So this is why we should just give up? To me it sounds like a call to educate the ignorant urbanites and make them come to an understanding of the importance of the matter. Your idea of just surrendering outright is intolerable; surrendering is for losers.



> Living out here I'm am continually amazed at the complete lack of understanding of the rural way of life, farming, hunting, ranching, hunting, shooting, etc. The generation of kids in high school right now has NO concept of life outside of media, technology and urban living. Those generation of kids have no empathy towards your gun rights whatsoever. The immigrant populations that I see, socialize and work with have no concept of any of the above either. They and their children also have no empathy for all the things you enjoy and hold dear.


The don't cater to them, educate them. FORCE them to learn and comprehend and wrap their heads around concepts that they normally wouldn't think of!



> In summary Gun Owner... I hope you understand I'm just trying to open up lines of discussion amongst us here on this board.


This is the same tactic used by the anti-gunners back in 1994. They tried to divide us on the whole "assault weapons" issue by turning the hunting population against us. They tried to destroy us from the inside with organized witch hunts. What you're suggesting is no different. You should be investigated to determine just who you're working for!



> We need to understand who the voting public is now, who they will be in 4 years from now, and who they comprise in a generation. We need to discuss if there are differences in laws between urban and rural areas, and push for necessary limitations in places where they may exist to promote the greater good.


Last I checked not a single candidate who got elected did so by saying "If I'm elected then I'll do everything I can to expand and improve current gun control laws" or anything along those lines. In fact the public was told that they wouldn't have to worry about their guns being taken away.



> We have a tendency to blindly follow the NRA as they are a powerful important lobby in our cause. But we also need to consider for ourselves whether we are sacrificing the safety of those who live in urban areas at the expense of us maintaining an absolute "no change" mantra.


The only reason urban areas are so dangerous is because there are so many bleeding heart liberals there who are always feeling sorry for every worthless criminal, drug dealer, gang member and murderer. None of these people want to get tough on criminals, instead they want to feel sorry for them and look for non-harsh alternatives like reeducation and probation and community service. Grow a pair! Either lock up the criminals, or shut up and stop whining about how bad the crime levels in urban areas are.



> If we are not willing to look for compromises when we have the current upper hand,


Upper hand? What upper hand!? We don't have any upper hand! The most anti-gun candidate on the planet has been elected president of the United States! He's assembled the America's Most Wanted equivalent of gun ban supporters! The house and senate are now ruled by people who won't hesitate for even one second to vote for a potential gun ban. Pelosi changed the rules and now the republicans can't do a damn thing about proposed bills except vote for or against it, they can no longer refer it back to committee or propose changes. This means that the Total Gun Illegalization Act can be proposed, passed through the house and senate, and signed into law and literally five minutes, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it!

Upper hand my @$$! We're in no better a position than the Jewish people were in Nazi Germany.



> then in the future, don't expect that when the majority of urban Americans decides it no longer sees a need for gun rights at all, that they aren't willing to compromise with you, and take away everything in your all or nothing gamble.


If you were told that you couldn't, ever, under any circumstances, own paper and ink because such materials were used for the creation of propaganda media, would you consider that a fair compromise as far as your First Amendment rights were concerned?[/quote]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> then in the future, don't expect that when the majority of urban Americans decides it no longer sees a need for gun rights at all, that they aren't willing to compromise with you, and take away everything in your all or nothing gamble.


What are you talking about Ryan? When the supreme court upheld the second amendment as an individual right you told us we were safe and no one could take our guns. Did you actually know better when you said that, but you wanted people to vote for Obama?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing that ryan stated is that if you don't live in a certain size community/town/county that it won't matter......where do most people do there shopping.......These big communities! That is just an arrogant and uneducated statement. I am not calling him uneducated at all but he did not think this through.

Because on my trips I have picked up cases of ammo at these types of locations. If I see a deal I buy it.

How about mail orders? (I don't know if this would effect that.) but if you ordered from a store to have it shipped to your door and that store is located in one of these communities.....does this now come into effect?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Quote:
We have to draw the line somewhere. Nothing is currently working to reduce the gun violence in large urban areas.

That's because nothing is being done. We have enough laws regarding the punishment of misuse of firearms to put away EVERY gang member and armed criminal for decades, but for some reason the courts aren't enforcing them. Instead they're willing to immediately drop all the weapons charges and accept a plea deal involving conspiracy, slap the perp with probation, and put them right back out on the street again.

Why is nothing being done? Because the liberal judicial system saw this coming for years. Let the criminals using guns off easy for as long as it takes for the voting citizens to believe that gun control is the only way left to prevent these crimes. And there are a lot of voters thinking this way. Better education to the masses on the failure of gun control might help, but I'm afraid it may be too late. The only way to express your concerns for your rights during this next four years might be to have a mass protest at D.C. when each bill is proposed in the house that would further their quest for Tyranny.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right Bowstring. I remember the shooting at the National Zoo in Washington. I think Bill Clinton beat the ambulance to the scene. The liberals salivate over the prospects of another columbine. I'm sure they value the life of children, and they go on about that for years, but they see it as an opportunity too. 
The news doesn't tell us many things, like how many lives are saved each year when an innocent citizen uses a gun to save their life, or the life of a loved one. They also don't tell us that the nut that shot up a McDonalds in Texas about 20 years ago had been a member of one of the anti-gun groups and an activist. I think the idiot thought the people he was killing were martyrs for his cause.


----------

