Next media opportuninty -- Print article in Ellicottville, NY paper

[Holdover]

I feel the biggest thing is that people are ignorant and misinformed about guns in America, thier purpose, intent, and history.

I would make attempt to open with a few qoutes of the founding fathers , so people can understand what thier rights are and why they were put into law to begin with. and the numerous historical exsamples of what can happen to a disarmed population. You could make the case that people who are pushing for hard gun laws are anti American and moveing against the constitution . They are attempting to change the very laws they swore to defend and uphold. The founding fathers had determined that self defense is a natural right , and that all liveing things have that inherant right to self defense that no legitimate law/goverment can take away .

founding father qoutes:

Gun Related Quotes from the Founding Fathers

results of gun control in the 20th centry

Paul Harvey on Guns

[Ralph]

Excellent additions.

[jager61]

Easy there champion.....LOL......You are rising to stardom rather fast,don't draw too much attention to the rest of us....

Haha!

[prophead]

I have to disagree with getting into the minutia of specific weapon types and such. These types of arguments only further confuse non-gunners. We like it because we are into the specifics and uniqueness of firearms type and those are the things we know.

Focusing on hunting arms and the rights thereof allows the left to skew the facts and create fog. This also creates a divide between pro-gun "sportsmen" and 2nd amendment advocates.


I think we need to stick to the facts that bans do nothing to prevent crime.

here is an example:
Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime

after the 96 ban in AU assaults rose dramatically, the murder rate remained statistically flat.

other thoughts:

the types of weapons being banned have little to do with crimes committed with firearms.

I totally agree with holdover and the original right to be armed and founding fathers, and Paul Harvey may soften things a bit for the better.

Also, we all want to keep arms out of criminal hands. strengthening NICs in a secure manner that leads to no lists of legal firearms owners or registration is doable, technologically speaking, today.

The real "fact of the matter", to quote our red leader, the laws they are proposing will do nothing to prevent these types of crimes and only disarm entitled individuals and create a greater strain on an already pressed legal system.

The revolving door of prison will only move faster as more people are turned into criminals by unconstitutional law.

I would be happy to do any background fact checking, statistics research, reference finding for you. Also, I would be happy to read your article and give you some feedback before you go to print. I do a lot of technical writing in my business and have become reasonable well versed at keeping things simple and straightforward.

feel free to PM me.

Thanks for putting out a positive voice.

[hermannr]

Another small town has asked for my opinion.

I have til Tuesday to write a print article delineating the pro-gun position regarding the current proposed legislation by Feinstein and Cuomo.

I'm tasked with reaching the sportsmen that will be affected by the legislation (Which effectively renders all semiautos NFA items or banned). Problem: I'm not a hunter. I know getting through to them is the key to getting the appropriate amount of rage going.

Consider this thread a forum for suggestions of what YOU would like to see in an article espousing 'our' position. Specific references to guns that will be affected by Feinstein's agenda (Semi auto + removable mag = assault weapon) will help.

Anything else will be considered as well. I can't go too fringey since I'm trying to draw in some moderates, but I won't give ground on any controls beyond required transfers at FFL (AKA the gun show loophole) and more data to NICS, both of which are nearly sure things to come out of this anyway.

What does NYF want to add?

you may want to read this for ideas: An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation


There is another very good article out by a democratic congressman (very 2A). you can find it on "The Firing Line" forum.

[Rico]

[QUOTE=Ralph;325180]

If someone is involuntarily committed at any point or is on psychoactive meds, I have no problem with that kicking back in NICS and that person having to submit to an interview with a sheriff before purchasing. In light of Newtown, wouldn't hurt to have to affirm that no household members are in a similar position.






I'm sorry but have to disagree.
1) Federal law already prohibits ownership by individuals that have been committed.
2) What medications and who is going to decide that you can't own a firearm based on them. You are using very broad terms, that would apply to a lot of people.

I have several Metal Health care providers in my family, one a practicing clinician. They are pro-gun and among the minority in their industry. Their opinion is that being prescribed an antidepressant in itself does not make you risk for firearms ownership. Whether you are a risk is a far more complicated.

They express that they fear this will stop people from asking for and getting the help they need. And that a deliberate attempt to misuse their diagnosis to promote a political agenda can and has already happened.

A lot of fine people you know attend counseling, use antidepressants, and are not a threat to anyone, and often fear sharing their treatment with you because of the reprisal they might receive from you.

If the use of a medication is criteria, what medications will be on the list, Paxil, Prozac, Insulin, prednisone, hormone replacements,? They all alter behavior. Who is going to decide that what one of us is taking is approved?
What diseases will they pick next epilepsy, MS, etc.

Are you willing to tell every Vet coming home that he or she can not own a firearm? Because there is already a movement to use PTSD to do that very thing.
How about new mothers with postpartum? And how about husband of the mother who already has to care for her and the new child then is told he has to turn in his firearms.

By the way I have an employee, a vet, in the reserves, an MP being reactivated, with a wife with postpartum on antidepressants, that is a great guy, probably my best employee, that under your broad definition would be disarmed and denied his rights.


I have a friend that has been in law enforcement for 20 years, when he first applied he was denied into the academy based on an interview with a department therapist. He appealed and found that the therapist denied it based on his interest in firearms and hunting.

[guygus3516]

I respect your feelings, but have to disagree. There is a vast difference between someone who has been committed vs someone who has been on psychoactive rx. Psychoactive is a really broad term. That would require government knowledge of all prescribed drugs being constantly updated on this database, which is a slippery slope. And if based on self report...well we know how that goes. Those with criminal intent lie. If it flags anyone who has ever been prescribed an antidepressant, sleeping pill, pain killer vs an anti psychotic it will take firearms away from most completely normal citizens. Ever had a surgery? They'll prescribe a narcotic. Insomnia? The drugs for that are psychoactive too. Blood pressure problems? Thyroid? Guess what they use...
Ever go to the doctor or a hospital and have it turn out to be an anxiety attack? After you are done being really embarrassed yet thankful you are not having a heart attack, you are going to lose your right to buy a firearm. In most cases, it doesn't even need to be treated. It happens to a ton of people, say goodbye to your rights. You could be flagged depending on what they write on that form.
I don't want to encourage people not to seek help when they need it, when in most cases it is 100% treatable. And then if family has ever been on an any of these drugs? There will be no one left who can legally hunt.
Psychoactive Drugs – Overview of Psychoactive Drugs
Psychoactive drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Psychoactive Drugs - TheBody.com

Just my opinion. I respect yours, not trying to attack you. I just think the wording on these things is important.

I agree, def should be based on condition, not meds. My wife has severe anxiety and I don't even know what she is on. Not crazy, just can have a panick attack at any moment and it's not pretty!

[prophead]

I'm not sure this fits into your article but the other fact about gun control is that it affects the poor and minorities the greatest.
this makes my head pop as to how the left gets away with this nonsense.


They live in the most crime ridden areas.
They are the most likely to be victims.

When I was getting my PA carry permit I met 2 black people, younger man and older women, unrelated, I could tell they were not the most well off but they were nice polite people getting PA carry permits. Its discrimination against them.
these are the people we need on our side.

[Ralph]

You misunderstand my intention.

I am not writing this to change anyone's opinion. I'm not using statistics to try to hammer home a point.

I am reaching out to the vast number of sportsmen, who don't realize they will personally be affected by the legislation being floated by both DC and Albany. I have exactly one purpose in life right now, and it's to reach as many voices as I can to make noise about the planned bills.

I have to disagree with getting into the minutia of specific weapon types and such. These types of arguments only further confuse non-gunners. We like it because we are into the specifics and uniqueness of firearms type and those are the things we know.

Focusing on hunting arms and the rights thereof allows the left to skew the facts and create fog. This also creates a divide between pro-gun "sportsmen" and 2nd amendment advocates.


I think we need to stick to the facts that bans do nothing to prevent crime.

here is an example:
Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime

after the 96 ban in AU assaults rose dramatically, the murder rate remained statistically flat.

other thoughts:

the types of weapons being banned have little to do with crimes committed with firearms.

I totally agree with holdover and the original right to be armed and founding fathers, and Paul Harvey may soften things a bit for the better.

Also, we all want to keep arms out of criminal hands. strengthening NICs in a secure manner that leads to no lists of legal firearms owners or registration is doable, technologically speaking, today.

The real "fact of the matter", to quote our red leader, the laws they are proposing will do nothing to prevent these types of crimes and only disarm entitled individuals and create a greater strain on an already pressed legal system.

The revolving door of prison will only move faster as more people are turned into criminals by unconstitutional law.

I would be happy to do any background fact checking, statistics research, reference finding for you. Also, I would be happy to read your article and give you some feedback before you go to print. I do a lot of technical writing in my business and have become reasonable well versed at keeping things simple and straightforward.

feel free to PM me.

Thanks for putting out a positive voice.

[hermannr]

You misunderstand my intention.

I am not writing this to change anyone's opinion. I'm not using statistics to try to hammer home a point.

I am reaching out to the vast number of sportsmen, who don't realize they will personally be affected by the legislation being floated by both DC and Albany. I have exactly one purpose in life right now, and it's to reach as many voices as I can to make noise about the planned bills.

Then you will like this: Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions

[RayKnobs]

Mag loaded semi auto rifle probably owned by A LOT of hunters = 10/22

it's 1 take down screw away from an assault rifle