The gun nuts would not hesitate to bring out assault rifles in protest of what they are doing.

Thanks for sharing

Day in and day out, you tirelessly bring gun control related news and information to our screens. Thank you.



P.S. - would you consider unblocking me from GCRA? I only made one accidental post which I deleted within 30 seconds. Shortly after I was blocked by one of your colleagues. I have no intent to create posts or respond to threads in a manner that doesn't comply with the SOP in that group.

Nice try but thoee guys are so scared it will never happen. Not to mention, I bet you never even get the courtesy of a response from that nice host.

I figured it was worth a shot, you know extending an olive branch so to speak. I would hope SecMo could put a good word in for me over at GCRA. I at least would value a response.

I didn't nor would I post pro gun sentiments in GCRA. If the anti gun folks post in GC&RKBA...I haven't seen a thread yet where the pro gun folks take exception to it and run off refusing to engage in a lively discussion. I don't know why that can't be a two way street. There are some antis out in GD that will engage in an interesting discussion.

I hope he gives Rourke request serious consideration

So much so, it is mostly abandoned now. The only remaining regular participants bleat the same insipid rhetoric like animatronic sheep. It's truly machine like in the lack of original thought and repetition.

...are preemptively banned there? LOL

That was true about "some" posters.

Was to question if some posts were outside of the SOP.

It is quite ironic, I think, given the GCRA hosts' concern for SOP adherence of other groups.

And at least one host from there thinks he can enforce rules here, lol

Perfect proof of their focus on Controlling others thoughts and words more than reducing gun violence.

The Johnson family and the Smith family. The Johnson family disagrees with the Smith family on just about everything. They don't like the way the Smiths vote, they don't like how the Smiths cut their yard, they don't like the music the Smiths listen to, they disagree with the Smiths on some fundamental level. But the Johnson family says "well, that's just the Smiths...those are their opinions and while we disagree with them..they are entitled to their opinion." The Johnson family invites the Smith family over to dinner, in fact they offer the Smiths a standing invitation "come over whenever you like."

Now, the Smiths disagree with the Johnsons but the Smiths are obsessed with having the Johnson family take on their beliefs. They are not at all accepting of the fact that the Johnsons have different tastes in music, landscaping, or politics. They periodically stop by the Johnson household, eat all the food, use bad language, steal the silverware, and crap all over the floor without an apology. The Smiths never let the Johnsons come over to their house for dinner...they never even extend the offer.

And that's kind of like my admittedly poor analogy for the online gun control debate. Gun control discussion groups are almost always heavily moderated and dissenting opinions are forbidden.

I imagine you could go over to any gun forum on the web and start a gun control discussion in the 2A sub forum and you won't be insta-banned unless you are actually trolling.

They don't care about the Constitution -- controllers know what is best for everyone and if your constitutionally protected right doesn't conform to their view of the world then too bad for you.

the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

They believe that the right to possess firearms should be vacated and property seized without due process protection. Mind you, ownership of arms ("to keep&quot is protected in itself.

forum posters and bloggers. I think most of the gun control arguments would apply equally.

With the registration of privately owned typewriters and the requirement to submit samples of typed text to the police to be kept on record. Wonder if word processing software and its product could be individually tagged so as each user can be specifically identified by law enforcement? I know nothing about software development so have no clue if such a thing is possible, but if it were, I wonder how our resident controllers might react to it.

...have facilities to add a user's name and organization to the product. These are embedded in every document unless you remove them or skip that step in the setup.

If UBCs pass, do you think the controllers will stop? Fold up shop and go home? Nope. Then it's on to a medical history evaluation (Hawaii already has this for gun purchasers, yeah turning over your medical history to law enforcement who can use any excuse they can come up with to deny a purchase.) or requiring approval from your physician prior to each purchase, then you have may issue systems, expansion of prohibited persons, ammo background checks, ammo purchase limits, assault weapons bans, approved gun rosters with nonexistent requirements, longer and longer wait times....no thanks.

In New Jersey a woman can be denied a purchase permit for being "too small" to handle a gun as decided by a cop who has unilateral authority in making that decision.

We need to have more discussions and see more action on removing hurdles to gun ownership in this country.

Depending on your goals, I guess.

...often includes creating a government list. Sometimes it's public, sometimes it's secret.