Questions gun owners should ask of political candidates
While Barack Obama is slinging mud in order to avoid running on his record, Mitt Romney is not enthusiastic about releasing his tax forms and politicians down the are looking for a campaign issue on which to hang their hats, gun owners should be asking some questions.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ques...id=db_articles
First up, If I were Romney, I would be telling Obama that I might release my tax info when Obama releases his "correct" birth certificate.
Second, the rifle in the picture is a mossberg .22lr, I have one just like it but without the shoulder stock.
Also, I agree that serious questions need to be asked, and not just about firearms.
"Why is it, when your kid has an imaginary friend people think they are cute, but if they have an imaginary enemy, they are paraniod?"
Bah!
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Ask your worthless sack of flesh in a suit to read that and comment, anything but complete support is unacceptable
DON'T PANIC
Originally Posted by Claymore1500
Oops!
Try again..,. (don't anybody help out here!)
Ok, I went back and blew up the pic. "it gets a little grainy when I do that so I might miss again.
Marlin model 60?
"Why is it, when your kid has an imaginary friend people think they are cute, but if they have an imaginary enemy, they are paraniod?"
Hmmm.....
Hmmm.....
Ok, this tells me that I must use my last guess, ruger 10/22.
Also, I went and dug out my mossberg 352k and there is a definite difference, ie: mag is farther forward.
Like I said, when I blow up the pic it gets grainy, I cannot make out the details.
Bottom line, what ever it is, mossberg, marlin or ruger, there is NO reason any law abiding citizen should be bothered for owning one.
"Why is it, when your kid has an imaginary friend people think they are cute, but if they have an imaginary enemy, they are paraniod?"
looks like a 10/22 in an aftermarket stock to me, but hi-res doesn't seem to be available.
DON'T PANIC
That would be my guess as well.
I agree with Dave Workman's recommendation to see if your chosen pol can ID the rifle - or is even willing to TRY and can get in the right ballpark - and with bigfatdave's suggestion here to ask them to comment on Bah!
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html . A "Vulcan mind-meld," indeed.
Gun rights aren't the ONLY thing that's important - but they ARE important.
"It's time we quit solving the wrong problem
The problem is the bad guy, not his tools.
Solve that."
- ArfinGreebly, mod at THR.us
Look at the record of the candidates on gun rights issues.
By the time a person runs for congress or the white house he/she has usually established a record for or against our 2nd Amendment rights. Joining the NRA just before he/she announces his/her candidacy for office does not count.
Twice in my lifetime i've been in shooting contests with home invaders. Gun rights are the only thing that matters to me. i could care less that the pro-gunner is a conservative Protestant preacher in the mold of John Brown or a liberal lesbian Wiccan. The pro-gunner will get my vote every time.
If neither candidate is a pro-gunner i'll write in a vote for Charlie Manson.
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that the idea we have that politicians serve us is the biggest load of rubbish you could possibly believe. It simply has no evidence or basis to support it.
THE ONLY CURRENCY OF POLITICS IS POWER.
A politician is not going to respond to common sense, right, wrong, decency, sympathy or any of the really stupid things people think. It breaks the first principle everyone denies exists. Read it again.
If what you want will not increase or decrease power you have no leverage in politics, NONE.
What is anyone offering politicians if they "listen" to firearm owners? How will it increase power? Will it decrease power if they don't listen?
The obvious answer is firearm owners and organisations offer politicians absolutely nothing and think the sympathy vote for them from politicians is is all that counts. Where this idea came from heaven only knows. There certainly is no evidence to support it.
Until firearm owners and organisations can influence power they are or no real concern. This is very easily shown to be true as no country in the world has less restrictive firearm laws now than it did fifty years ago. We are losing this war of that there is absolutely no doubt.
We don't examine why we lose we are arrogant *******s who think we are doing fine.
49% of the US population supports more strict gun control laws. Just 12% less. You figure it out because politicians have.
In the 1990's 60% of the US population supported more strict firearm laws, look what that got gun control. Votes for politicians and the POWER of more CONTROL and reliance on government for permits, licences also adding cost and difficulty to ownership creating elitists. Elitists who will sacrifice others to remain a firearm owner.
See this article.
https://www.swatmag.com/articles/view/hardcore_activism
Until firearm owners start thinking correctly, using experts to guide them and listen to sound advice they will continue to lose fighting all those who tell them they are doing this wrong. They are doing it wrong. Fact, proven fact that cannot be denied.
Mr. Free,can we have a citation on that percentage? It seems a bit in the high range for more controls.49% of the US population supports more strict gun control laws. Just 12% less. You figure it out because politicians have.
Not doubting you,just wondering about the source, always remembering Disraeli's dictum,"there are lies,damn lies and statistics".
"A man's got to know his limitations"
'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973
I ask candidates if they have a CCW.
I don't care if they do.
I want to see their reaction to the question.
Had one dweeb say he supported gun ownerhip. I asked if he had a CCW. His answer was "why would anyone want to carry a gun?"
He was a republican too.
AFS
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote