GET ROSIE AT HER OWN HOME!!!

Home

I found this over at Shooters and had to pass it along here. GO VOTE! Got this link from the guys over on AK-47.net. Seems like everyone's favorite gun control spouting cow has her own magazine now. On the magazine's website there is a poll relating to gun control. The funny thing is that right now, 93% of respondents are saying that anyone should be able to own a gun without restriction. I bet she wasn't expecting that one! I wonder how long it will be before they take the poll DOWN. Go cast your vote at the link below. <A HREF="http://www.rosiemagazine.com/causes/index.jsp" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rosiemagazine.com/causes/index.jsp</A> ------------------ T LEEAPATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy![This message has been edited by T LEE (edited April 05, 2001).]

has anybody tried to vote more than once? It will be much better if they have some control on it and get some good numbers.Believe what it says is that rosie has more people who seriously dislike her, than the small number who actually like or listen to her, or are neutral enough to leave the TV on when her show airs. Nothing personal against the folks working there, but magazines are a tough business and I hope this attempt fails. art------------------ Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

I just voted. I voted with the vast majority who believe that we should be able to own any kind of firearm with absolutely no restrictions.BTW, I voted just once. [Linked Image]

I voted. Like Dawg.I try not to use the word hate, so let's just say .... I strongly dislike Rosie and all she stands for.Too bad her poll won't mean anything. Save the HTML, folks and email it around. She'll disappear it as soon as possible, you can bet.Rick

I voted, went back in, and it appeared that I could have voted again, although I didn't try it. I suspect some of us, meaning gunowners, are padding the polls so to speak. It is not credible that the average person who would go to Rosie's site would vote this heavily in our favor on that issue. Was 91% for unrestricted use when I was there. But, unlike some other polls, they do not release total vote numbers on this one. At any rate, I suspect that the poll won't last long. good shooting

I voted. As should everyone. I didn't over-vote, I prefer being honest. We can win with honesty, whereas her lies are causing her to lose. ~~~Suluuq

Keep up the good work folks, and be honest like rusty. We can prove the point better that way! Pass the word to all your friends. And tell the non-comitted or unsure ones to check it out, might change a few minds.------------------ T LEEAPATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy!

Maybe we can get a good little debate going with my response.Did you really think about the question?I think everyone should be able to own a gun with no restrictions?Felons as in convicted murderers, rapists, and robbers? Mentally unstable people? Kids?And NO restrictions? Not even on something like fully automatic machine guns or bazookas?Im totally opposed to waiting periods, trigger locks, smart guns, and other things like that but surely we need a limited amount of control dont we?Dont get me wrong, Im an NRA member and I own quite a few guns and think most other Americans should be able to also. But do you truly think anybody who wants one should have one with no restrictions at all?------------------ <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>

Arkhunter,I'm not sure if you are were serious with your post or just trying to stimulate the discussion, but I'm casting my vote for NO restrictions. Please hear me out. Take the ones who use weapons in the commision of a crime and prosecute mercilessly, but leave the rest of us alone. I would suggest that you read, if you have not done so already, the Federalist Papers and other writings by our founding fathers. You will find that their intent was that citizens have access to the same arms as the military. Today, that would mean that I should be able to purchase and own, without restriction, and M16 or MP5 if I so choose. I'm not saying that I would want them. I'm not sure what the heck I would use them for, but then again its not really about hunting or target shooting. The real truth of the second ammendment is that the militia (defined in the context of the time of the drafting of the constitution as any male age 16 to 55) should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and the country from a tyrannical government. I know where you are coming from when you say that you don't have a problem with "reasonable" restrictions, but like any other form of censorship it a very slippery slope. Do you think that the folks in CA, MA, or MD ever envsioned that they would end up where they are today when the first "reasonable" restrictions were passed? I doubt that they could even imagine it in their worst nightmares. Even the instant background check has already shown that it can be abused. At first, the records were to be destroyed instantly, now the FBI can hang on to them for a period of time. It was supposed to speed up the purchase process by eliminating waiting periods in some states, and now we see all too clearly that they can impose whatever waiting period they choose by simply turning the system off for a few days (weekend of MMM in DC for one instance). Every time there is government oversight involved, it always leads to abuse of authority. Put me firmly in the NO RESTRICTIONS column. It is time that this country started to prosecute the criminal and not the tools that he chooses to use to ply his trade. ------------------ Stush

Arkhunter To carry the point further, should everyone be allowed to vote? Seems proper enough to say yes, but convicted felons lose that right also. Everyone should be taken as synonymous with everyone who has not had the right revoked by conviction for a serious crime, ie a felony.Unfortunate thing there is that the ATF has managed to get mild tax law violations turned into felonies. The stories of their abuses are chilling, and they should be held accountable for their perversions of law. art------------------ Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

OK fellows. This country was founded as a REPUBLIC not a democracy, that means each and every one of us is endowed with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as long as the exercise of these rights do not infringe on others same rights. When one embarks on a criminal career and is convicted of a felony they loose their civil rights the same is true for those unfortunates that are adjudged mentaly incompetent thus they can not vote, hold public office, own firearms etc. unless and until their rights are restored by legal means. Therefore people must be responsible for their own actions and not regulated to death by "majority rule". We do not need to be protected from ourselves by the government or any other entity, but need to protect ourselves from those that would propose other wise and infringe upon our God given rights as guaranteed in The Constitution of The United States of America!------------------ T LEE Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL just a generous margin of SAFETY! APATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy![This message has been edited by T LEE (edited April 06, 2001).]

I wished this is how all gun polls would look. When I voted, it was 87 % for the no restrictions. Maybe she'll put this in her pipe and smoke it. When was the last time a criminal cared about a concealed permit or a background check? Why should I? For one reason, because I'm not a criminal. However, the justice system will always make it easier on the criminals and harder on the non-criminals, victims/potential victims. So we'll be the ones who suffer the hardest from gun control, while the criminals still will be buying them on the street. And Rosie, get a life.

Well, first off Im just trying to stimulate a discussion. But I do pretty much believe what I said also.I dont think at the time the Constitution or the Federalist Papers or anything else were written that they envisioned the kinds of weapons we have today. They couldnt have. I just personally dont see the need for ordinary people to need to carry M16's or other fully automatic weapons. Or for murderers or other felons to be able to own them either.I do understand yall's points about reasonable restrictions at the same time though. You start with one, then the liberals think if they pass another one it'll stop something, then realize they need one more, and so on.The part about felons giving up their rights makes my point. That is a RESTRICTION. The question says should EVERYONE with NO restrictions. If you limit it to people who havent been convicted of a felony isnt that a restriction? But I think its a restriction we can live with.I just want to be clear on this. I think every law abiding citizen in this country who wants to own or carry a gun should be allowed to do so. I dont however, think this should include every weapon available to the military.I dont think convicted felons or mentally unstable people should be allowed to buy, own, or possess guns.I dont think anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy or carry a gun.To me, this issue is similar to other rights we have. Even though we have the right to free speech, there are limits as to what we can say. Just as there are(far too many in my opinion)limits as to gun ownership.OK, yall's turn! [Linked Image]

------------------ <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Arkhunter: Well, first off Im just trying to stimulate a discussion. But I do pretty much believe what I said also.I dont think at the time the Constitution or the Federalist Papers or anything else were written that they envisioned the kinds of weapons we have today. They couldnt have. I just personally dont see the need for ordinary people to need to carry M16's or other fully automatic weapons. Or for murderers or other felons to be able to own them either.I do understand yall's points about reasonable restrictions at the same time though. You start with one, then the liberals think if they pass another one it'll stop something, then realize they need one more, and so on.The part about felons giving up their rights makes my point. That is a RESTRICTION. The question says should EVERYONE with NO restrictions. If you limit it to people who havent been convicted of a felony isnt that a restriction? But I think its a restriction we can live with.I just want to be clear on this. I think every law abiding citizen in this country who wants to own or carry a gun should be allowed to do so. I dont however, think this should include every weapon available to the military.I dont think convicted felons or mentally unstable people should be allowed to buy, own, or possess guns.I dont think anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy or carry a gun.To me, this issue is similar to other rights we have. Even though we have the right to free speech, there are limits as to what we can say. Just as there are(far too many in my opinion)limits as to gun ownership.OK, yall's turn! [Linked Image]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The point is, regulate the abusers not the tools. Using your logic would mean we should outlaw cars that go too fast, power saws that take off fingers or anything else that has the "potential" to hurt, maim or kill a human being! Tools (yes weapons are a tool) are only as safe as the user choose. Human beings are the one's that HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE for their use and RESPONSIBLE for the results! Common sense needs to rule, not the government or the Sarah Brady's of the world. I recieved my first rifle at the age of 6 and was allowed to hunt and shoot alone by the time I was 8. AFTER I had proven to my Dad that I could do so safely, and I have been doing so for a long time since then. No I do not recommend this for everyone, this is were the common sense come's in. People have to be tought that they and only they are responsible for their actions and the concequences, no amount of regulating can accomplish that, only education can. ------------------ T LEE Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! APATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy!

I think we probably all agree that while it sounds like a good idea to restrict certain people (i.e. felons, crazies and children) from possessing firearms, such laws really accomplish very little or nothing. They still get them easily, so it's sort of a moot point. When they finally get caught because they used the weapon in a way that they shouldn't have, it's just one more crime on the list of criminal charges, but the murder charge is really what matters, not the possession charge. Plus, as long as we have laws without strict, zero-tolerance, hard-assed enforcement, they are a waste of paper and ink.Answer this: If we have no restrictions on the types of weapons a citizen is allowed to have, does that include such things as nuclear, biological or chemical weapons? If not, what exactly is the distinction between a weapon that is allowed and one that is not? -al

Well at least its getting a little discussion going!OK, lets dont use my logic lets use yours for a minute. A person should be allowed to buy a race car and drive on the interstates like it was Talladega as long as they are responsible right? But arent speed limits a restriction?Using your logic, because I have the right of free speech I can say anything I want to about you, your family, your business, or whatever I want, true or not, with no repurcussions right? But isnt my freedom of speech restricted?I could go on, but Im about to leave for work. Ill check back in tomorrow night.I think Ive made myself pretty clear that Im pro gun and own quite a few myself. My whole point is that there HAS to be SOME restrictions. There are restrictions on practically everything else in life isnt there?I got my first gun at a young age also and gave my son his first gun at a young age. But everybody wasnt raised as we were and arent raising their kids the way we do either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>People have to be tought that they and only they are responsible for their actions and the concequences, no amount of regulating can accomplish that, only education can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Youll get no argument from me on that. Its exactly what Ive tried to drill into my son for almost 16 years now.------------------ <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>

I didn't say there would be no repercussions. Reread the following. People have to be tought that they and only they are responsible for their actions and the concequences, no amount of regulating can accomplish that, only education can. I can slander you, but I have to be ready, willing and able to suffer the consequences. The same goes for any thing else I do, thats were the SELF regulation comes in. As I said in a previous post. This country was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, that means each and every one of us is endowed with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as long as the exercise of these rights do not infringe on others same rights. ------------------ T LEE Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! APATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy![This message has been edited by T LEE (edited April 08, 2001).]

I believe that the second amendment was made to keep big daddy government from getting ideas about oppression. We just came out of the Revelutionary War where we fought against an overly oppressive government. This being the purpose of the second amedment, I also believe that for that purpose to be valid, a civilian must be allowed (perhaps even required, think of Switzerland) to own most kinds of military weaponary. Do you think a dozen guys with bolt guns can stand against a dozen guys with automatics and grenades? See why we should be allowed to own military weapons. As for felons, most should not be allowed to own firearms, but seeing as how murder can be a misdemeanor and not paying taxes can be a felon, it would depend upon the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you think a dozen guys with bolt guns can stand against a dozen guys with automatics and grenades? See why we should be allowed to own military weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats a good point even though I still disagree. I just dont like the idea of that many fully automatic weapons on the streets.I think every one on this board and most people in general, would be OK in owning them, but it would make it awfully easy for the wrong people to get their hands on em too. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for felons, most should not be allowed to own firearms, but seeing as how murder can be a misdemeanor and not paying taxes can be a felon, it would depend upon the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with that statement but that brings us back to the point. That would be a restriction and most people are saying NO restrictions.Keeping guns away from convicted felons is a restriction I think we can live with.Just dont pass any more stupid ass restrictions like waiting periods or what Gore wanted to do with limiting you to buying one gun a month. ------------------ <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>

Ellie Mae... Do you think the 2nd, which says in part, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." refers to nukes? Nukes are not firearms, I would think. Nukes should be used to protect our/retaliate for our country as a whole, against another country. Firearms are to be used by the people as individuals, for hunting/sporting/defence purposes. ------ This is a good debate, but it takes things to extremes. Criminals of any nature, for certain crimes(felony, repeat misdemeanor), should be permantly banned from owning firearms. Crime is crime, get rid of it by getting rid of those that do it! The 2nd is here so we can defend ourselves against others, against other countries, and/or against a tyrannical government(which I believe it is becoming). We're to over throw the GOVERNMENT, not the Constitution as most believe, especiallyanti-gunners, so we can vote in NEW people to make it as the Constitution says it should be. Understand, the government can become a bunch of people guilty of treason and their illegal laws, so it must be replaced in such circumstances. Problem is, most Americans are merely sheep, led around with a noose by wolves in sheep clothing. ~~~Suluuq

If we put the criminals in the slammer and leave them there we wont have to worry about them "getting their hands on firearms". After all, if a felon can get his hands on a gun then that means he has been let out of jail after a previous offense. HOSS

Rusty - The same argument is made by the antis: When the founders recognized our right to keep and bear arms, they never imagined high-capacity "assault weapons" so therefore the second amendment doesn't apply to them. If the second amendment recognizes our right to only own firearms (the main military tool at the time), and its purpose is to insure that we can defend ourselves not only against crime but also against a tyrranical government, how are we supposed to do it when firearms become obsolete? They just about have in modern warfare. How many firearms were used in Iraq? When faced with nukes and smart missiles, an oppressed public, armed with even full-auto rifles, has little chance. Let's imagine that railguns and weapons that incapacitate or kill at a distance with microwaves are common military weapons. I think that (or something similar) is a feasible reality in the future, maybe in the present for all I know. Does the public have the right to the same, or are they off limits because they are not firearms? They aren't weapons of "mass destruction" but they are also not firearms.Just some wild thoughts to fuel the discussion. I think there's no doubt that public ownership of smart missiles and nukes would be disastrous. I'm basically with Arkhunter on this, but I have to wonder where is the best place to draw the line and yet not defeat the purpose? -al

Arkhunter,It is hard for me to believe that you are from Arkansas, since they have a long tradition of hunting and fishing, passed on from father to son, at a much younger age than 18.I have been shooting, initially closely supervised, since I was 3. I gave my son his first rifle when he was 6 and intend to do the same with my daughter when she turns 6 this month. Your mention that people under the age of 18 should not be allowed to posess or carry weapons is contrary to much of the sporting tradition of this country where the love of hunting and a knowledge of weapons is instilled at an early age in our children. I would hope you would consider the impact of your idea. Do you seriously consider that another restriction on gun ownership would stop someone from murdering another person? How many laws can they execute you for? And how many times? There is a significant difference between gun ownership and car ownership/driving, in this country. The right to bear arms is a right. There is no right to drive. The problem with your whole position is that any restrictions inevitably lead to the call for more when that set inevitably does not prevent crime. Finally you have an Australia, no guns, rising crime and rising crimes against persons. Now what? Crime and murder is a human condition and will not go away with a total ban on guns, but our ability to protect our freedoms will.

PS, Screw it, I'm voting more than once, you can bet the antis are, and this is not some field of honor with rules, this is war and we know the first rule of war. "There Ain't NO RULES."

Since when do ordinary people have access to M-16's and fully automatic rifles?Are you talking about AR-15's and MAK-90's,Arkhunter?So what the hell difference does it make if a person,who has never broken any laws,goes to a rock quarry and fires off 200 rounds in full OR semi-auto?If he's not going to break the law,it doesn't matter if he has a L.A.W.S. rocket!Klibold and Harris had a frigging .22 and an old shotgun.McVeigh used a turd bomb.Im sick and tired of these old,viagra addicted, farts that say they support the N.R.A. and gun owners but just mess there depends if someone has an S.K.S. or MAK-90.'If it doesn't have a wood stock and look like my daddy's shotgun then I have a problem with it'.Sporting guns is not what the 2nd Amendment is about.I love the latest spin out by libs..."the founding fathers never envisioned 30rd. mags and A.K.'s they would have never written the 2nd".Bull****.Muskets at that time WERE military arms,the same guns civilians owned.With that kind of logic then the internet,T.V.,radio and electic press's are not included in the 1st Amendment since they were not in existance at the time of the signing.

I responded to Rosie's poll yesterday. at that tme the "no gun control" votes were 82%. Looking at Rosie I'm surprised that she isn't more concerned with harpoon control! curmudgeon

I have to agree with Stinkey Balls. If you continue the logic used by some on this board and elseware, all modern technology should be regulated if not banned entirely as it did not exist at the time of the Constitution. No electricity or electronic media, no motorised vehicles, modern medicines, high rise buildings, women or non landed voters, civil rights, Etc. or at the very least highly restricted as no one had it then. No I do not advocate nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but find no problem with modern fire arms the infantry man has at his disposal. They are after all just "ugly", not functionaly different from some "sporting arms". I am sorry, but people were more cautious of others rights and feelings back then as there were consequences not toothless laws to make them restrict their own actions. Right, wrong, morality and ethics are learned behavior, teaching of these values is what we must do, not pass more and more laws against or for the regulation of tools. I no not whom I paraphrase but it goes like this. "AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY". also I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "A PERSON WHO IS WILLING TO GIVE UP A LITTLE FREEDOM FOR A LITTLE SECURITY DESERVES NEITHER."------------------ T LEE Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! APATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy!

T LEE, your're absolutley right! If anything is protected under the 2nd amendment, it is a military style weapon. This all boils down to morality and responsability. If you are to be free, you"ve got a responsability to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner. You cannot abuse your freedom. Taking away freedom from all, to control abuses is nothing but a band-aid. Our kids have to be taught self control, not gun control. 7mmbuster Trust in God and Fear Nothing

Man, where do I start?I guess by saying thanks to Rusty Gunn first. We may be the only two who believe we need SOME restrictions!Hoss-We cant keep every felon in prison forever. Some serve their sentence and get out on parole. It happens every day.Ellie Mae-I think I read your post wrong. Are you saying that the public should have access to smart missiles and nuclear weapons also? Surely not.If It Flies It Dies-You are right about the age part. When I wrote that I was thinking about the young thugs and gang members who carry guns. I wasnt meaning kids using guns to hunt. I did start carrying a gun myself at an early age and allowed my son to do the same. If Im ever fortunate enough to have grandchildren who hunt, Ill do it the same with them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>old,viagra addicted, farts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ive been called a lot of things in my day, but I gotta tell you, thats a first! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since when do ordinary people have access to M-16's and fully automatic rifles?Are you talking about AR-15's and MAK-90's,Arkhunter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats exactly my point! Please go back and read my previous posts.I dont think EVERYONE should be allowed to own guns with NO restrictions!Thats exactly the way the question reads and it seems to be the consensus for how most of you want it to be. I just think you need to really think about it.Seriously. Do you truly think that average citizens should have access to every weapon available to the military? Think about what this could mean!Someone like say, Bill Gates, could buy and operate his own battleship? Have his very own nuclear weapon or smart missiles?Maybe thats taking it to an extreme, but it seems to be what some of you are saying.There has to be restrictions. If its simply to say that convicted felons or mentally unstable people cant own guns then thats a restrction. But its one I think we can live with.We have restrictions on everything. Guns should be included even though I also feel that the right to own guns is guaranteed in the Constitution.Other rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution but they too have restrictions.

I was probably rambling without making a clear point. I'm basically with you, Arkhunter, in theory. Not EVERYBODY should have guns with NO restrictions. Minors have no rights because they are immature, and felons gave them up when they became felons. But at the same time I have very little faith in legal restrictions making any kind of real difference, especially in a society that worries about a scumbag's "rights" and "self-esteem" more than accountability. Economics probably plays a bigger role in who has guns. Also, when I see a poll that gives me only a handful of choices, I check the box that fits best. For what polls are worth.I certainly don't advocate civilian ownership of nukes and smart missiles. A psycho on a roof with a rifle is one thing - it's the price of freedom. A psycho with a nuclear bomb is another. But I question whether the original justification, as clearly stated in the 2nd amendment, is really even remotely possible in modern times. Are we dreaming? That's not to say that keeping the government in check is no longer a valid concern, just that I doubt we could really do it, even if we did have an M16 in every household and didn't have our own complacency and gullibility to contend with. I'm no warfare tactics expert, but what could we do, even if armed with full-auto firearms and ample motivation, if faced with an oppressive government in control of modern weapons of such power and sophistication that they makes our M16's look like sharp sticks? Has the 2nd amendment become merely symbolic? -al

You made some excellent points.I think we have far too many gun laws on the books now, but a few of them we can live with and even need in my opinion.We couldnt possibly pass a law that would end crime or murders. Like you said, "its the price we pay for freedom".------------------ <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>