velociraptor
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
A Link to Bloombergs Anti gun web site questionaire...feel free to skew their survey
- Thread starter velociraptor
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
velociraptor
Well-Known Member
These are smart people with world class marketing assistance. Do NOT underestimate them. That said feel free to skew any and all such surveys.
I agree with you, but I answered no because it was Field Marshall Von Bloomburg asking.
I didn't because the government shouldn't be able to say what is "Secured"
(Remember in some countries your guns have to be locked in one safe, bolt in a second and ammo in a 3rd!)
Civil liability: Sure.
Government infringement: Nope.
Also a way to keep the children from growing up in a gun culture...
Yes. Word fu trickery.
That one sounds good in theory but it would end up being used to punish both responsible and irresponsible gun owners
Last edited:
We really need to repeal the ones we have. These laws are worthless. They are mainly used to limit gun ownership. We have plenty of laws to charge criminals with, so we do not need gun laws. Why bother to charge someone with illegal carry and armed robbery? Armed robbery should be enough. We should just increase the penalties for the actual crimes and dump the political crimes. The GCA of 68 was drafted using the Nazi 1938 Gun Control law, so we are enforcing a Hitler law in the United States.
velociraptor
Well-Known Member
This is another example of excellent wordsmithing of the question and an example of the sophisticated tactics they are using.
What person would not want to protect children and prosecute criminals. This way they can say even "so and so" supports some of our points.
The devil is in the details. What does "unsecured" mean? Does it mean disassembled, locked in a safe with a trigger lock on it?
What they really are saying is that if a firearm is stolen the firearm owner is presumed to have been negligent and thus should be prosecuted for any crime committed with the firearm. They want a presumption of criminal negligence for the owner.
Please understand their definition of "reasonable" and "common sense" are not what most people would consider either. Their definition of reasonable is "their way or the highway" and "common sense" means whatever they decide.
...and yes these votes likely make zero difference to the group. That said it does make you familiar with the disinformation they are spouting so you can explain it to your friends. They are trying to build a grass roots group. We need to counter that with our own efforts to preserve the 2nd amendment.
Last edited:
velociraptor
Well-Known Member
Great
BTW the use of the term "common sense" and "reasonable" which has become the add on word to anything contentious is actually a brilliant debating tactic. It makes the listener presume the phrase following it is indeed sensible. It is likewise difficult to counter verbally since you have to both rebut the presumption of "common sense" as well as the argument that they are making. You actually appear to be unreasonable.
It is rather like the "pro-choice" label. Who would be against the ability to make a choice after all?
