View Full Version : How many gun bans supported before the org is anti gun?
August 8, 2008, 04:23 AM
If an organization supported the 1934 ban and it's president testified in congress on behalf of the ban, is THAT enough to say that organization is anti gun?
If an org supported the 1968 ban PLUS the previous ban, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
If an organization's president said in 1968 that full autos were "gangster" weapons and should be banned, and "didn't have a legitimate place in the sport of shooting," PLUS supported the previous two bans, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
If an org not only supported the 1986 ban but pretends nothing anti gun happened in 1986, PLUS the previous bans, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
If an organization supported the Lautenberg ban plus the previous anti gun items, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
If an organization repeatedly had board members that supported magazine bans and bans on full autos, PLUS all of the previous stuff, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
Suppose an organization did not encourage or even support the passage of "Vermont/Alaska" carry (i.e. 2nd amendment carry), PLUS all of the previous anti gun stuff, is THAT enough to call that org anti gun?
I'm not going to name this organization, I'm just wondering if all of this is enough to refer to it as anti gun?
August 8, 2008, 06:59 AM
Don't feed the trolls. :rolleyes:
August 8, 2008, 07:14 AM
This thread looks like a wonderful thread for L&P (Legal and Political), but aside from that; Why not look at the jpfo.org website.
August 8, 2008, 07:15 AM
How many times must a person (or organization) spend time and energy dividing the gun rights movement before we recognize that said person (or organization) is the real enemy?
August 8, 2008, 07:53 AM
i think just having an anti-gun policy is enough for me. If they say no guns, i say no business.
August 8, 2008, 08:22 AM
The stink of Troll Dung is strong here... Is that Larry Pratt I see under a bridge?
August 8, 2008, 03:13 PM
I picked the username "dangerous onions" for a good reason. Just look at how so many people have utterly flipped out and lost their civility just because someone posts an honest onion.
My opening post was honest, straightforward, civil, and thought provoking. How could anyone be against that? It's a simple hypothetical question. I PURPOSEFULLY did not name any organization because I didn't want people to lie and twist it into claiming that I'm supposedly "bashing" any organization.
I did not level ANY personal insults at anyone. It's a shame you people refused to return the courtesy.
August 8, 2008, 03:23 PM
Why ask other people where the line is? Different people will have different opinions based on their understanding of the issues and outcomes. Decide for yourself it an organization's public stance is at odds with your beliefs and act accordingly.
August 8, 2008, 03:33 PM
You're right, we shouldn't discuss principals or patterns at all :rolleyes:
Dude, in the end people will decide for thems elves no matter what, so your comment really didn't make sense.
You seem to be advocating that we keep quiet and not deal with what I laid out in my opening post.
What made people REALLY REALLY mad is that I didn't take a shower in July, all I did was rub some patchouli oil in my pits once a week. Anyone within 10 ft. of me knows this is true. That just made them fume and instead of dealing with what I said, they attacked the messenger. Oh well, difficult truths always result in a few people doing that.
August 8, 2008, 03:43 PM
What made people REALLY REALLY mad is that I didn't name a specific organization in my opening post, all I did was give a description of behavior that they knew is true. That just made them fume and instead of dealing with what I said, they attacked the messenger. Oh well, difficult truths always result in a few people doing that.
What a load of horse dung.
Yes, I threw the insult and I'll throw a dozen more. More and more GOA fanatics (no, not all GOA members are fanatics but I do believe most are being mislead) have been coming around to rabble rouse. They make direct or indirect attacks against the NRA and then stand there, like yourself, feigning shock at their "mistreatment."
Well I used to have some patience for this garbage and held back with new posters since they were... new posters.
That is no longer the case. It seems to be a movement of sorts by GOA operatives / Pratt worshipers to attack the NRA on everything from legislation passed back in 1934 to the outright lies the GOA puts out regarding the supposed "Veterans Disarmament Bill":barf:.
That's it, a spade is a spade. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet and an insurgent GOA anti NRA attack thread has the same stink of troll dung it always had regardless of the feigned innocence of the poster.
August 8, 2008, 03:44 PM
and what the hell does this have to do with shotguns?
August 8, 2008, 03:49 PM
just because someone posts an honest onion I don't see an onion stated anywhere in the original post.
Assuming your questions are rhetorical, which organization are you referring to?
August 8, 2008, 04:08 PM
^Way to split hares big bang. Way to pretend you don't know what org I'm referring to.
Well, the people who are into name calling and denial will name call and divert weather I name an organization or not. Apparently, the gun community is just not willing to discuss the facts I laid out in my original post. The nra really did those things and you all know it. Why attack the messenger? Just have the courage to deal with the reality.
This has nothing to do with shotguns, I posted it in the wrong place by accident. Look at my member status - are you surprised? I immediately posted a follow up post recognizing the mistake but that post is gone for some reason. If you look at all posts under my username you can see it though. Weird. Also, I DID post it in legal and political, but it's gone. Apparently it doesn't matter HOW polite a person is, if they merely try to discuss the nra's past support for gun bans (which it has not rescinded) you get run out of town on the onion. Very telling.
August 8, 2008, 04:19 PM
Ah, I see.
Your member status, as you drew attention to it, does suggest that you are a narcissist. Perhaps you should change your username to "instigative onion."
There is no perfect organization committed to any common goal on this earth.
Now shove off.
August 8, 2008, 06:45 PM
Stuck a fork in this one and sure enough, it's done.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.