BANG !

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
Truckie

Wise One

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 13:24

You take offense that I use "leftist, liberal, skewed, emotional and propaganda" in my posts.

Let's take a look at John Lott. And just for reference,
http://www.johnlott.org

I'm not asking you to believe Mr. Lott's research and writings, that's not what I'm asking at all. What I am asking of you is to Google John Lott and to take a look at all the sites that pop up to discredit him. Read how the Brady Bunch and other liberal avenues **personnally** attack him. Read the way that they take his research, whack it all out of context so as to "emotionally skew" and discredit his conclusions. I don't very often see the Right discounting Leftists in this fashion, with this passion and/or isolating facts in the attempt to smear them.

Google Michael A. Bellesiles and see if he earns my titles and ire. After being hailed as a Leftist Deity, Bellesiles was determined fraudulent by Emory U saying, "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work" and "Arming America is based on non-existent data" over Bellesiles book. He was forced to resign from Emory U in shame. He was also stripped of his award, the Bancroft Prize.

Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate wrote:One could only imagine the outcry if a conservative scholar, fabricating evidence to prove a pet conservative point, had been found to be careless (to say the least). If the purpose of historical scholarship is to construct a past that is congenial to oneown biases, then Michael A. Bellesiles can be judged a success. But that is not, of course, the purpose of historical scholarship. Those who understand that can take heart: Arming America has been disarmed by its own dishonesty.



My name identifiers of the Left and of their tactics stands, and holds firm merit with examples.
And please take note, I've still never said, "Leftist nut job."
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 14:05, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 29 13:29

Truckie wrote:Reference

Thank you for this useful citation, and for making the effort to find it. It is interesting and has useful conclusions about uncertainties over how effective gun laws are in improving public health outcome. I was generally familiar with the results, which I've seen cited elsewhere, and it is useful to have the 'real deal' to refer to. I have read it carefully.

And so, I must quibble. You asserted, and I challenged you to verify, that "the CDC could not connect firearms with any significant negative impact upon the public health ... the CDC actually found firearms beneficial in several instances." The report you cited does none of these things.

The CDC report only calls into question the epidemiological effectiveness of gun laws. It verifies and emphasizes the significant public health consequences of the widespread availability of guns in the United States right up front, in the Background section.

Furthermore, it does not find firearms "beneficial" in any instance, concluding instead that " ... available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence."

:wink: Veritas vos Liberabit :wink:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 14:14

Wise One wrote:
Truckie wrote:Reference

Thank you for this useful citation, and for making the effort to find it. It is interesting and has useful conclusions about uncertainties over how effective gun laws are in improving public health outcome. I was generally familiar with the results, which I've seen cited elsewhere, and it is useful to have the 'real deal' to refer to. I have read it carefully.

And so, I must quibble. You asserted, and I challenged you to verify, that "the CDC could not connect firearms with any significant negative impact upon the public health ... the CDC actually found firearms beneficial in several instances." The report you cited does none of these things.

The CDC report only calls into question the epidemiological effectiveness of gun laws. It verifies and emphasizes the significant public health consequences of the widespread availability of guns in the United States right up front, in the Background section.

Furthermore, it does not find firearms "beneficial" in any instance, concluding instead that " ... available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence."

:wink: Veritas vos Liberabit :wink:


Actually, the study did find instances where firearms were "beneficial" in certain circumstances. The link that I posted does not include them. Clinton demanded that such information be suppressed from the CDC's findings. I'm fairly sure that Janet Reno is credited with informing the CDC that such information was beyond the guidelines and parameters of the study, and thus ordered it omitted. However, these toward findings were leaked prior to hitting the shredder.

As far as "verifies and emphasizes," that was also a Clinton mandate and a general wipe. Of course the widespread availability of guns places them into our society; that's simply a "duh" moment Wise. However, the guns are not creating our ills. The rampant degradation of our society, of our morals, of our conviction to what is right and the lack of rearing our children is doing this hands down. Again, liberals have a need to blame the hammer for the carpenter's smashed thumb... or in the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "the pencil for misspelled words."

You go in search of Wise, I will 'try' to refrain this time... and you're right, "Veritas vos Liberabit." Please, give 'er a whirl.

How about that firearm class?
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 14:55, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: BANG !

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jun 29 14:18

Yeah we are looking for a few people that can go to Pat Goodale's defensive pistol class in WVa!!
Μολὼν λαβέ

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 14:28

Concerned_Citizen wrote:Yeah we are looking for a few people that can go to Pat Goodale's defensive pistol class in WVa!!


LOL

Yeah, and Wise can even ride with me! I'm confident that he'll likely black my eye sometime during that two-hour trip though.

Goodale's tuition is double what I was offering to pay, but... if Wise is game, my offer still stands. I'll even lend Wise a Glock, holsters and extra magazines if he'll agree. However, you'll have to buy your own ammo Wise, that's getting way too expensive.

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: BANG !

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jun 29 15:20

He can borrow one of my holsters if he's a bed wetter like me!
Μολὼν λαβέ

Truckie

Further Thoughts on the CDC Study

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 17:00

Hold no misconceptions; the CDC was very aware of the Clinton hidden agenda and position/politics concerning firearms when it undertook this "study."

I cannot readily find the cites to what I'm about to type. Therefore, please don't chop me to bits if you find them.
Anyhow, when that study was directed to the CDC, the CDC filed a protest with the Administration.
Their exchange went something close to this:

CDC
The CDC is not accustomed to the investigation of laws and their impact and/or relationship with humans and upon society. The CDC is staffed, equipped and ready to investigate germs and microbes and their relationship and impact upon the environment and the animals and humans that must live within a scope environment and society.

The CDC is insufficiently prepared to study firearm legislation and its influence upon humans, human psychology in relation to firearms, and the societies in which each exist. The CDC defers such matters to the Justice Department; an agency of the government charged, equipped and suited to investigate such legal issues, interactions and relationships.

Clinton Admin. response
The CDC is charged with the investigation and mitigation concerning matters of public health. The CDC shall willingly conduct this study. The expectation is that the CDC will establish the correlation between firearm laws, the restriction and prohibition of small arms, and the determination that firearm legislation holds a toward impact upon society, hence affording the protection of the public health.


Even with those directives at hand, the CDC would not blatantly lie in its study... nor could it find data supporting Clinton's directive, opinions and positions as it was instructed. The conclusions were that the CDC COULD NOT establish a toward relationship between firearm legislation and the public's well-being. The CDC found instances and circumstances where a firearm was beneficial to the outcome of certain given situations and events, this information was suppressed.

When the study was released to the Clinton Admin., the things being said were unsatisfactory to its agenda. The Clinton Admin. directed the CDC to omit certain findings and muddy up many others, and to add disclaimers such as the one cited by Wise One. What you're reading today is a diluted version of the original content.

Notice that the study is extremely quick to disclaim that its findings dispute anti-firearm legislation as offering a toward impact upon the public health. What the CDC is in fact saying through its disclaimer is that it was unable to establish and find data in support of anti-firearm laws either. And by that very fact, the CDC is EXACTLY determining that anti-firearm legislation is worthless and only penalizes lawful citizens.

The Leftist Antis whom salivated throughout Clinton's reign had learned a hard lesson from the Congressional elections. When you outright attack firearms and their owners, these voters will trounce you at the polls at their next opportunity. So went the Congressional elections of Clinton's era.

The Antis had to alter their tactics. Of those alterations was born the push to denounce firearms as a public health issue and menace; hoping to add weight and a new twist to the Anti's cause. The CDC was mandated to fill that agenda, and it failed them... thankfully and wholly.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 19:05, edited 2 times in total.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 17:16

Concerned_Citizen wrote:He can borrow one of my holsters if he's a bed wetter like me!

Now, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are!

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 29 21:01

Truckie wrote:Then, you have an open invitation to accompany me to the firing range for some fun education. Or how about a morning or afternoon of skeet or sporting clay shooting?
Thank you for your generous and friendly offer, which sounds like fun. Actually, I've already done a lots of shooting and hunting so it would probably not add much to my basic education, apart from technical details relating to the gazillions of varieties of guns and ammunition now available. My interest in these has receded over the years, and has been replaced by an intense devotion to sailing where I spend most of my time and energy.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 29 21:39

Wise One, Funny thing is that when I take my 40' Trawler out to Bahamas I ALWAYS have a 12 guage shotgun and a AR-15 onboard, so my vessel won't be pirated by drug smugglers . My thoart cut and crew and my boat used for drug smuggling and them scutteled. Smooth Seas. Pro

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 22:33

Wise One wrote:
Truckie wrote:Then, you have an open invitation to accompany me to the firing range for some fun education. Or how about a morning or afternoon of skeet or sporting clay shooting?
Thank you for your generous and friendly offer, which sounds like fun. Actually, I've already done a lots of shooting and hunting so it would probably not add much to my basic education, apart from technical details relating to the gazillions of varieties of guns and ammunition now available. My interest in these has receded over the years, and has been replaced by an intense devotion to sailing where I spend most of my time and energy.

The offer stands Wise. Probably you can teach me a few things then!

Did you intentionally begin this thread on an ANTI inflection just to spur the ensuing debate? A debate that you very well knew would follow such Anti retoric? Were you trolling Wise?

This post of yours brings to mind two things.
First, the old wisdom of being careful who one is talking with, you never know of their experiences. I neglected that wisdom while speaking with you over this thread. I "assumed" by your thoughts and words contained within that you had never touched, and with a scowl would reluctantly handle, a firearm. See what we learn about one another when we converse?

The second thing is this, and please do not take this personally as that is my furthest intent, but I will use "you" to make this point.

You epitomize what is wrong with the firearm Rights movement. The Antis are bonded and speaking with one voice, they hate guns period. Gun owners on the other hand fight amongst each other about what is right and just, what directions firearm owners take, and don't take. There is a serious lack of cohesion in the pro-gun movement.

You are obviously a gun owner or former gun owner. You have obviously derived enjoyment from firearms at some point in your life. Yet, you do not support gun owners as a whole (if in fact you are stating your positions inside this thread, and not just starting the fight).

For instance, I no longer hunt. I don't like to kill animals for amusement and/or "sport." When the deer are out destroying my property or ramming themselves into the front of my car, I'm thankful that others are killing and eating them. But anyhow, I no longer hunt and I really am torn by the way some hunters behave. I don't like the killing of living beings... but, I'm a hypocrite because I'll eat the tailhole out of a pig if it's cooked right.

My interest in firearms is sport and collecting neat guns. I no longer have an interest in "hunting configuration" firearms. Another side of my interest is professional. This all extends to the enjoyment of shooting when I can. It carries over to sport shooting at inanimate objects, engaging in defensive pistol shoots and training to provide entertainment and hone lifesaving firearm skills.

As I've said, I don't like hunting any more. But, I support hunting and hunters. I don't go out preaching that sport shooting is all right, but hunting is wrong. I support fellow lawful gun owners and users without matter of what they're doing with their firearms. I promote cohesion and single voice among gun owners... issues that are a must if the Lefties are to be silenced and defeated.

Hunters whom disagree that I should own an AR-15 or a semi-auto handgun that holds 17 rounds of ammunition or any other type of firearm should suck that belief up too. Those folks should support my RIGHT to firearm ownership without consideration of what firearms I choose to own and/or what lawful acts I engage with them.

For professional purposes, I am trained to carry and use an automatic M-16. I am trained to carry and use an automatic H&K MP-5. I am trained on a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches and a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long. On the job, I can handle, carry and deploy all sorts of "illegal" weapons. When I clock out however, being in possession of such weaponry will quickly buy me a one-way ticket to the FED HoochScow. There's ineffective gun legislation for you... laws that do NOTHING to prevent and/or deter crime.

What irks the heck out of me is the fact that if I desire to -own- those types of weapons, and I could own them, I have to invest $200 and a lot of time and documentation into the FED. I have to make my home and weaponry available to the BATFE for inspection, and at its whim I might add. I have to amass $25,000 to private purchase an M-16, a weapon which the U.S. Military and U.S. law enforcement agencies can purchase for around $800. Just in case this surprises anyone, yes, a lawful private citizen can purchase and own an automatic weapon (aka machine gun), if this citizen is wealthy enough that is. How's that for the widening gap between the poor and the privileged?

One thing the SCOTUS said that riled me was its contention and definition of "weapons in common use." Of course an M-16 is not in common use! Having one will cost a private citizen $25,200 and a LOT of hassle. I don't know about any of you, but I am too common to afford that price tag and too pro "individual" to jump through the government hoops to have one.

The moral to this bantering is this, Gunners need to unite or loss of that Right will surely come.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 23:11, edited 1 time in total.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 22:40

Wise One wrote:My interest in these has receded over the years, and has been replaced by an intense devotion to sailing where I spend most of my time and energy.

A side note, some of my fondest youthful memories are of sailing with my uncle on his Catamaran. Lake Champlain was so beautiful in those days... I hope it still is.

Happy wakes Wise.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 22:43

Pro Bono wrote:Wise One, Funny thing is that when I take my 40' Trawler out to Bahamas I ALWAYS have a 12 guage shotgun and a AR-15 onboard, so my vessel won't be pirated by drug smugglers . My thoart cut and crew and my boat used for drug smuggling and them scutteled. Smooth Seas. Pro

As well you should ProB. Just as you should when on SML or any other. Pirates lurk everywhere and are even known to wear khaki shorts and Docksides.

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 29 23:48

Truckie, I shoild be in Lexington in a few weeks. I would love to shoot some clay birds with you. And after, have a brew and some Bar -B-Q. More people should know the smell of Hoppes # 9 .Hoppes #9 smells like the 2nd too me. Pro

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: BANG !

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jun 29 23:50

Truckie,
I want to hit the range and warm up the barrel in the AR!!
Μολὼν λαβέ

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 30 00:01

But do you know the smell of Hoppes # 9 ? Pro

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: BANG !

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jun 30 00:46

I most certainly have my supply of the sweet smelling toxic concoction in my cleaning kit.
Μολὼν λαβέ

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 30 13:30

Pungent. And best used outside. But brings back memories of my childhood and my semi Browning 22LR..Maybe we should all get together around Thanks Giving and have a Turkey shoot for charity. To those that don't know there are no dead Turkeys just the best pattern on a paper target from a shotgun.More memories. I always went to the Turkey shoots with a 32" barrol . I was a shoe in for the Turkey gift cerifacate every year. No one complained as I was between 9 thru 12 y/o. Oh' by the way I am a member of the NRA ( whick I am not a nut case ).Nothing better than a morning at the range with freinds and a Southern breakfast after. Safe Shooting, Pro

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 30 16:11

Pro,

I'd love nothing better than for CC, you and me to get together and pop a few caps!

As for the Hoppe's, I use Shooter's Choice these days, but a bottle of Hoppes9 is always a staple. There's a bottle in my cleaning box too.

Be safe, and let's do try to get together.

Truckie

So, What About It Wise?

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 30 16:17

Were you Trolling with this thread?

You were a gunner, but now have reconsidered your position on firearms and the Second?
or
You don't support ALL gun owners and don't believe totally in the Second... except as it would apply solely to you?

Since we've riled one another along the way, and now we've seemingly eased, I'd just like to know -your- truths.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 01 19:46, edited 1 time in total.