Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/24/2004 6:13:52 PM EST
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2004/09/24/assault_weapon_ban_t.php#feedback#feedback

Feel free to help out with comments at the bottom (click on 'show all comments'). I had lots of help from my friends at SAFER, the UW-Gun Club, big thanks to them.

Now if we can get PPA passed this year so we can defend ourselves against the string of gang beatings on campus
http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/09/23/students_relay_horro.php

-Adrian
http://safer.rso.wisc.edu
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:21:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2004 6:24:19 PM EST by JCKnife]
badgerherald.com/oped/2004/09/24/assault_weapon_ban_t.php#feedback#feedback

made hot for ya.

ETA: Damn good article. Nice work!
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:33:37 PM EST
Excellent story!! Hope you're not getting backlash from the angry wannabe hippie college kids for telling the truth.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:37:47 PM EST
Take a look at the comments at the end (under "feedback"). Good stuff.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:45:50 PM EST
I know that you all will take care of Adrian in the feedback.

Make sure he's not along in refuting the myths.

Adrian is the Minister of Information.



Good work Adrian!

Corey
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:56:33 PM EST
This actually gives me some hope for the future of my country.
Thanks, Adrian.

Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:06:36 PM EST
Good job representing us, while being careful not to re-enforce the "Bubba" stereotype.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:10:39 PM EST
... Here, let me buy you a virtual beer!
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:14:59 PM EST
Very good and well written article!
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:15:04 PM EST
Good work!
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:15:16 PM EST
what a fucktard



Anonymous:
The Second Amendment stipulates freedom to bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated militia, like the army or police. It was never intended to allow all people to own whatever weapons they want.




why would the Army need a constitutional amendment to be able to use a firearm, that is kind of a given if your in the military. What is congress gonna do "Army your bad so no more guns fight with your hands for now on"
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:18:06 PM EST
This is the feed back I left on the web page:
Wow, very well put. I see there's been alot of people who have no clue how the world really works that have left feed back. Let me just say that gun control does work. Ask anyone who was in Germany in the 1930's, when 13 million Jews were killed. Or how about in the Soviet Union in the 1920's when 20 million people were exterminated.


Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:23:39 PM EST
This is my favorite

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


but yet today the anti-gunners in congress are doing exactly the opposite
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:35:01 PM EST
Thanks for the posts guys (and thanks for the beer Winston!)

"why would the Army need a constitutional amendment to be able to use a firearm, that is kind of a given if your in the military. "

I know, I cracked up BIG TIME when I read that. Here, let me show you what one guy emailed me...

Nicely titled:

"You're an ASS!"

Regarding your propaganda piece in the Badger Herald of 24 September.

1. You're right, it probably was more symbolic than anything. So? Mental
defectives like yourself will argue symbolism in this case as a
justification not to impose the ban. What about the symbolism of a bunch of
NRA gun nuts hijacking the legislative process? No matter how many times
you and your ilk say it, you DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY. Indeed, as many
as one third of NRA members were in favour of the ban remaining in place
when polled, although I doubt they would be willing to say that publicly.
Yeh, you speak for the reasonable people of the world, what bullshit.
Perhaps if the NRA would refrain from using intimidation people would be
more willing to believe your warm fuzzy fairy tales about guns instead of
seeing remnants of Hitlers brown shirted filth whenever you speak.

2. Those 20 dems who lost their seats. All because of specifically
targeted campaigns by the NRA. Wow, what a great example of why you are
correct! It never fails to amaze me that you and your ilk repeatedly
present evidence disproving your own premise and characterize it as the
opposite. Again, refrain from using the tactics of Herr Goebbels and
reasoned people might take your premise more seriously. The only people
swallowing your crap are already living in a "compound" somewhere waiting
for the coming race war. Not only does their election loss not prove your
point, it shows exactly why ANY law, no matter how inane, should be inacted
solely on the basis of NRA opposition. If it breaks your ability to
disproportionately influence the legislative and electoral process then it
is worth it.

3. The gun violence experiment has already BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ANY FUCKING
CREDIBLE ARGUMENT. You have in effect a worldwide experiment where the US
is the only nation willing to tolerate gun ownership and gun violence levels
to such an extreme. No one EVER could have designed any experiment anywhere
to be so absolutely irrefutable and unimpugnable. What the FUCK is the
major malfunction with people like you that you are still willing to argue
the opposite?

4. I'm a Canadian gun owner. I find the gun registration program in my
nation to be joke, and a massive fucking waste of tax dollars and time.
That said, we don't let people run around with guns designed for ONLY the
express purpose of killing other people. That would be pistols and assault
weapons, OF ANY FUCKING KIND. Thus we don't have the gun violence problem
you do. Like any right wing nut, of one thing I am certain. Your opinion
on this or any other social issue would be 180 degrees opposite if the issue
actually affected you, you fucking hypocrit. Don't give your inane opinions
on this issue until your family has been victim of the latest postal
massacre or Columbine style shooting. Then we'll see the true metal of your
so called convictions.

May you be the next victim of a 30 round clip you fucking waste of skin. At
least then we will know God has a sense of humour you fucking shit stain of
a human being.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:37:27 PM EST
my response:

Hey Billy,

Thanks for responding to my article. If you would like to discuss things through email, I'd be more than happy to, but I would appreciate it if we left the name calling, profanity and violent temper out of it (and the temper with your owning firearms does raise some concerns) - I hope perhaps you were just having a bad day and it happened to come out in the email. It happens to all of us.

Anyways, if you want to chat about this, so long as the name calling ceases, let me know and I'll gladly respond to your comments. I really feel that civic debate strengthens our democracy, and I would never shy away from participating in one. Let me know.

Best wishes,
-Adrian
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:38:05 PM EST
ris response:

>Hey Billy,
>
>(and the temper with your owning firearms does raise some concerns)

ya don't see the hypocrisy in this statement? You are some piece of work.
Save it. You're damn right I have a temper. And I vented it all over you
based on inane statements. Nothing I said CAN be refuted so spare me your
replies. Have a nice life, hope one of your gun nut friends don't mistake
you for a rabid squirrel or some similar imminent threat to their being.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:39:56 PM EST
And my final email.. he asked me to refute his arguments, so I did. Interestingly enough, I didn't feel the need to bolster my arguments with profanity and threats. I dunno.. kinda scary this guy is a gun owner.... I hope he keeps them on his side of the border.

Hello again Billy,

Since you believe NOTHING you said can be refuted, I thought I would try. I'll try to ignore the personal attacks, I guess I can't really prove that I'm not an ass, so I'll try to stick to the issue at hand...

First of all, you have some problems with the NRA

>What about the symbolism of a bunch of
>NRA gun nuts hijacking the legislative process?

Our political system works on "special interest groups." Everyone is a member of a special interest group. 1/3 of American households own firearms and there are many non-gun owners who don't own weapons but respect my right to do so.

Please remember that not everyone lives in Madison, WI where speaking about "guns" will get you a timeout. The NRA is as influential as it is because there are millions of individual members who use the NRA to have their voices heard. Gunowners are well organized because we believe our rights are of utmost importance to the nation. Our forefathers understood this, and that is why they wrote it in our constitution.

>No matter how many times you and your ilk say it, you DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY.

Well, one of us is certain the "vocal minority," and no matter how loud we scream profanities, it won't put us in the majority. You seem to be yelling to make up for something.. if you could use logic and fact in your argument rather than name calling, I might be able to consider this point. Oh, and if gunowners were as loud and obnoxious as your email, we would have repealed every gun law including the 1934 National Firearms Act, whether we were the majority or not.

> Indeed, as many
>as one third of NRA members were in favour of the ban remaining in place
>when polled, although I doubt they would be willing to say that publicly.

Find me that study, and the methodology. I hope we are both smart enough to know that stats can be easily abused. I did polling work for a summer for the US Department of State - I am well versed in statistics. Besides that, I don't know of a SINGLE NRA member who was pro-ban, and I know a lot of NRA members.

>Yeh, you speak for the reasonable people of the world, what bullshit.
>Perhaps if the NRA would refrain from using intimidation people would be
>more willing to believe your warm fuzzy fairy tales about guns instead of
>seeing remnants of Hitlers brown shirted filth whenever you speak

First of all, I'm a hypocrite? You're the one admonishing the NRA for using "intimidation techniques" in the middle of an email which seeks to "prove your point" through writing in a style so offensive that I'm almost afraid to respond to it.

Secondly, people think of Hitler when the NRA speaks? That's pretty flip flopped. In Hitler's evil little world, the NRA would have been the first thing to go. Hitler first ensured the populace was disarmed, then he trampled on their other rights. Perhaps if the Jews had a few million guns they could have persuaded the Nazis not to kill them (or at least taken a few of the SOBs with them).

>Again, refrain from using the tactics of Herr Goebbels and
>reasoned people might take your premise more seriously. The only people
>swallowing your crap are already living in a "compound" somewhere waiting
>for the coming race war.

If you want to talk about racism, let's talk about gun control, one of the most racist institutions since slavery was abolished. Gun control has rascist roots, you know. Both pre and post Civil War, laws were enacted that prohibited blacks from owning guns because they feared a slave revolt. Gun control was used to keep people down then, just as it is now.

What did the AWB do? It raised the price of firearms. Just like all those frivilous lawsuits that cost gun manufacturers millions to defend. Prices go up. The lowest incomes in our country are made by minorities. So called "Saturday night specials" are banned. Why - because they are inexpensive. The belief is that this will keep guns out of the hands of people because they won't be able to afford them. Well, an honest and concerned black man in the ghetto can't buy a gun to protect his family, but he isnt going to steal one like the criminal because he isnt one. Who are we protecting with gun control? Interstingly enough, Dianne Feinstein's body guards carry firearms and she has (or at least used to) have a concealed weapons permit. She lives in Cali - if its safe enough for everyone else to be disarmed, why does she need guns? That's hypocricy.

>2. Those 20 dems who lost their seats. All because of specifically
>targeted campaigns by the NRA.

The NRA can't vote. There were obviously enough people who didnt appreciate the dems hiking the prices of their guns. But I guess you must think that all gunowners are mindless zombies who buy whatever the NRA tells them. I guess I could make the argument that everyone believe what the Violence Polichy Center tells them about "assault weapon" statistics.. everyone but me, who actually has the audacity to look them up and find out they were WRONG.

>3. The gun violence experiment has already BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ANY FUCKING
>CREDIBLE ARGUMENT. You have in effect a worldwide experiment where the US
>is the only nation willing to tolerate gun ownership and gun violence levels
>to such an extreme.

That is completely false, and there are irrefutable evidence that proves so. In Switzerland, EVERY SINGLE MALE is issued, and required to own and be proficient with a fully automatic military rifle, because they are part of the "militia," just like all American males ages 18-45. There is no gun violence in Switzerland.

In Britain and Australia, guns have been banned en masse over the last few years. Violent crime has skyrocketed. In Australia, they are now having to pass "sword control" laws because swords have just replaced guns. People aren't killed in the US by guns, it is the people behind the guns that do the killing. That is the solution to our problem. Taking away my rifle won't do anything to reduce crime. I follow the law, its the other people you need to worry about. America is the only country in where criminals with multiple violent felonies are released from prison simply because we don't have room to keep them locked up. It is also one of the few countries whose politicians think that passing redundant laws making certain criminal acts doubly illegal will work better than enforcing exisiting laws and holding criminals responsible for their own actions (well, Great Britian and Austrailia do that too).


>4. I'm a Canadian gun owner. I find the gun registration program in my
>nation to be joke, and a massive fucking waste of tax dollars and time.

HEY! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

>That said, we don't let people run around with guns designed for ONLY the
>express purpose of killing other people. That would be pistols and assault
>weapons, OF ANY FUCKING KIND.

So some guns are designed to kill people, and others aren't? Today's hunting rifles are yesterday's military models. All guns can kill, people, animals, whatever. And Canada does have lots of handguns: Michael Moore even said so himself.

Guess what, we don't have any "assault weapons" here either. Well, that is if you use the term correctly - a small military rifle capable of automatic or burst fire. The AWB did nothing about real "assault weapons," it only restricted semi-automatic firearms. Actually, it is perfectly legal for citizens to own fully automatic firearms, per the 1934 National Firearms Act. And for the record, only one legally owned, fully automatic weapon was ever used in a crime, and that was 50 years ago and the criminal was a cop. Think if we would have completely banned fully auto rifles. It wouldnt have had much of an impact on crime, but a lot of American history and a significant ability to defend our homeland would have been lost.


>Like any right wing nut, of one thing I am certain. Your opinion
>on this or any other social issue would be 180 degrees opposite if the issue
>actually affected you, you fucking hypocrit. Don't give your inane opinions
>on this issue until your family has been victim of the latest postal
>massacre or Columbine style shooting. Then we'll see the true metal of your
>so called convictions.

People in my family have been the targets of crime, and some of them have used firearms to defend their lives. If my family was involved in a Columbine style shooting, I would blame the guy who pulled the trigger, and myself for allowing my kids to go to school where they wern't protected. Guess what - guns serve both heroes and villians alike - that same Tec 9 used in Columbine could have saved a lot of lives if it had legally been in the hands of a trained and resolved teacher. We train our teachers how to use fire extinguishers and defibulators (sp?) - why not teach them how to use firearms? Had there been armed teachers in the building, things certainly could not have turned out worse. Perhaps the shooters could have been neutralized before they killed as many kids as they did.

Same thing with the incident in Russa. It is very much illegal to own firearms in Russia, especially automatic ones. It is also illegal to make bombs and plant them in schools. That did nothing to stop the terrorists. At that moment, the only people the teachers and kids could depend on was themselves. There were no police there to save them, as there usually isn't during the commission of a violent crime. The victim is usually on his or her own.

>May you be the next victim of a 30 round clip you fucking waste of skin. At
>least then we will know God has a sense of humour you fucking shit stain of
>a human being.

Though it is possible I will be a victim of violent crime, I will not go down without a fight. Someone may break down my door to try to shoot me, but I will have a firearm and training to defend myself. Unless misguided politicians take them away from me. In that case, only the criminal will have a gun and I'll be on a wing and a prayer.

It's pretty clear that you are buying into the whole emotional argument "gun control is to save our kids" - that kind of thing. I would really like you to honestly, open your mind, and do some research, look up crime stats. Read up on some shootings - ask yourself whether or not gun control would have prevented the crime from occuring. Ask yourself, if murder is already illegal, how is making something doubly illegal (posessing a firearm to murder someone) going to stop a crime in the first place.

http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=2591

A good article here. Talks about a beach smoking ban. This city banned smoking on the beach because they were tired of having cigarette butts lying around. They already have littering laws, which they obviously didnt enforce. So now, they pass another law, which will be just as difficult to enforce, and people who smoke who dispose of their cig butts legally will be hurt by it. It's not the smokers (gunowners) it's the litterers (criminals) who cause the problems. Enforce existing laws, punish CRIMINALS (not me).

Last paragraph. Look at the gang beating on state street recently. One guy against 15 people. Gang beatings are already illegal, should we prohibit people to use their hands in public? Or maybe ban cars, because the criminals probably used a car to get downtown that night. (reminds me of Animal House and 'double secret probation'). But guess what, if the poor, defenseless 100 lb painter who got his face bashed in had been allowed to carry a firearm for protection, he probably could have scared off those thugs, or if in the gravest extreme had to, used deadly force to protect his own life. I just hope no one dies in an incident like this before people are either allowed to posess effective tools to defend themselves, or the criminals are somehow caught and put behind bars FOR A LONG TIME.

There, that is my response to your 'irrefutable' arguments. please feel free to email me back and comment on my logic or my evidence, but don't email me back with emotional nonsense, name calling, profanity or threats. If you feel like you need to 'win' this debate, let me know, and I'll tell you that you won. But if you would actually like to discuss the issues, then let's do that. Discuss the ISSUES.

Best wishes,

Adrian
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:44:41 PM EST
Oh, and one thing I forgot to add. is THANK YOU to everyone on AR15.COM who helped me find FBI/DOJ stats and make some of the arguments I did. You were all very helpful. Three cheers!

-Adrian
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 8:16:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 8:28:41 PM EST
Hey, thanks for posting on the Herald website. If you are ever in Wisconsin, drop me an email, we can grab a beer, lunch and hit the range (not necessarily in that order)

I got lucky with getting the article in the paper. The Badger Herald is actually somewhat conservative, our other paper, the Cardinal is flaming left wing. I had written one short article that was actually published in the BH, but it was really short and I couldnt get into things. That was after this dumb kid ran a story on the sunset which was really biased and full of errors and misquoted me and our club President. http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/09/10/countdown_on_for_ass.php

The same day my first response article ran, this same dumb reporter ran another article that was even worse! He miquoted Jim Fendry of the Wisconsin Pistol and Rifle Association..

"Fendry noted the only guns prohibited had to contain more than two of the following: a pistol grip, butt stock, flash depressor, bayonet plug or grenade launcher."
http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/09/14/assaultweapon_ban_ex.php

Buttstock? Flash DEpressor? Bayonet Plug? I was furious. So I wrote in and bitched, demanding a correction, got none.

I happened to read someone else's opinion article on what it was like to be a Bush supported on campus. I emailed him, told him I enjoyed his article and that we as the gun club knew how he felt. I also mentioned we were pretty disappointed with the BH's coverage of the ban. He pulled some strings, wrote back, and said that I could have a guest column.

It just goes to show, that it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know. My article was backed by fact and logic while the others were frought with errors and emotional arguments, but if I didnt know someone, it never would have made the paper.

I'm excited to see if there will be any follow up articles published trying to refute what I said.

Regards,
Adrian
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 9:07:31 PM EST
Hey Repub18 (et al): Left the following on the comments section:



If the 2nd amendment was intended for use only by the army (the government) or the police (the government), then why have all of the other rights been viewed by SCOTUS as applying to the individual?

Of course, it could be worse... we could be surrounded by certain rude folks from Canada.



Great article, nicely done.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 9:20:06 PM EST
Very nice! Keep up the good work! Don't let the pinko commies get you down!
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:00:08 AM EST
Had to get one more in:
Yeah, yeah, yeah... You know what really matters? We, the gun owners of America won. The assault weapons ban is dead. So watch out because I hear there has been a marked increase in drive by bayonetings.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:10:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By AdrianUSP9:
ris response:

>Hey Billy,
>
>(and the temper with your owning firearms does raise some concerns)

ya don't see the hypocrisy in this statement? You are some piece of work.
Save it. You're damn right I have a temper. And I vented it all over you
based on inane statements. Nothing I said CAN be refuted so spare me your
replies. Have a nice life, hope one of your gun nut friends don't mistake
you for a rabid squirrel or some similar imminent threat to their being.



Projection.. he has a bad temper and sees it as normal.. thinks everyone is the same..
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 1:14:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 1:15:01 AM EST
EXCELLENT ! Gives me hope for the future of our country when I read articles such as yours and see them followed up with calm refutation of the criticisms.
It just blows the saps away when they can't get a rise out of you.

Rip
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:49:03 AM EST
You done good.

CHRIS
Top Top