Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
4/22/2019 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 3/31/2007 2:34:27 PM EDT
Guys,

http://www.centralillinoisproud.com/media_player.php?media_id=707

I found this in the Brady Bunch site. They're also rallying their troops to push for all the anti-gun bills coming for vote.

Link Posted: 3/31/2007 4:40:23 PM EDT
The lady was a lying slickster, but Richard was like a deer in the headlights against her. he needed to be more engaging with her and should have slammed her down.
Link Posted: 3/31/2007 6:14:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KingC:
The lady was a lying slickster, but Richard was like a deer in the headlights against her. he needed to be more engaging with her and should have slammed her down.


I agree, he was too laid back with his remarks, expecting truth to over come the "bunch" lies. In a society that is so accustomed to those lies, her version of the truth simply goes in one eat and out the other to the uninformed.
Link Posted: 3/31/2007 6:27:09 PM EDT
She said:

There is no law to prevent terrorist from buying this gun and using it to shoot down a plane.


I would have said...good point...lets outlaw flying lessons....lets outlaw alcohol...etc.etc..


He should have been more forceful though, in debates (of which I engage regularly) you must have the facts and you must present them with overwhelming conviction
Link Posted: 3/31/2007 11:28:33 PM EDT
And Richard Pearson's supposed to be our head huncho. Gotta fight fire with fire. I'd like to see more firepower, to think that we have facts, statistics, and logic on our side.

I haven't heard of anyone from our side either harnessing the D.C. 2nd Amendment ruling by challenging similar bans as that in Chicago which is pretty identical to D.C.'s.

How about the ISRA participating in our Illinois Hometown forum here?
Link Posted: 4/1/2007 7:56:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2007 7:59:46 AM EDT by Revision]
He got nailed in that interview. I don't think we was prepared.

She keeps saying that a .50 can blow a hole in a tank. He should have laughed and said, "a 50 can't blow a hole in a tank". Ask any M1 Abrams tank crew if they are afraid of a .50 caliber weapon hurting their tank. They will laugh at you.

There are already laws in place that prevent citizens from owning large caliber military weapons such as the 20mm and 30mm anti-tank rifle. Please note that these rifles are called "anti-tank" whereas the 50 is not. Why put another law on the books that is totally worthless and a waste of tax money? That money would be better put to building and repairing the highways or finding new ways to bring the cost of gasoline down so that we wouldn't be as depended on foreign countries for oil.

She refers to the .50 as being able to blow up cars. I've shot a 50BMG in AP, and incindiary. All it does it put a hole in the car. The same can be said for all ammunition down to the diminutive 5.56mm round. It makes a hole in the target that's it. Nothing goes kablouie. To say that a .50 will take out an airliner is even more incredulous, with the number of redundent systems in a modern airliner, you'd have to have a small army all firing a large number of rounds at the thing to even come close to a serious situation. Ever try to hit an object half a mile away? Its a challenge. Hit a moving target at almost 1000 yards away? HA! You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Trying to enforce a ban on a single weapon that would not affect crime or even the terrorist situation is a waste of taxpayers dollars. This is even more critical now because the state does not have money to allocate to project with zero gain.
Top Top